General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Can anyone elaborate on why the design review committee would recommend against this? There seems to be no negative heritage impacts (most of the land covered by the increased limit is the wasteland-like area south of Hollis, on the east side of Barrington) and 22 metres isn't especially high anyway. What's the problem?

It's rare that I'll say something like this, but the whole east side of Barrington between Superstore and Smith Street is ripe for demolition. It looks like a 1970s industrial park got deposited into the middle of the city; there's not a single thing worth retaining. (There's a lot of junk on the west side of the street too, but also some great old houses that have a lot of potential to be adapted as street-facing commercial properties.) If raising the height limit will spur new development, it seems like a no-brainer.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Can anyone elaborate on why the design review committee would recommend against this? There seems to be no negative heritage impacts (most of the land covered by the increased limit is the wasteland-like area south of Hollis, on the east side of Barrington) and 22 metres isn't especially high anyway. What's the problem?

It's rare that I'll say something like this, but the whole east side of Barrington between Superstore and Smith Street is ripe for demolition. It looks like a 1970s industrial park got deposited into the middle of the city; there's not a single thing worth retaining. (There's a lot of junk on the west side of the street too, but also some great old houses that have a lot of potential to be adapted as street-facing commercial properties.) If raising the height limit will spur new development, it seems like a no-brainer.

1 - it includes the train station, which is a heritage site of note

2 - to send a statement to management at HRM that they need to get the Barrington South conservation district done, rather than making excuses. What DRC said was "this should not be allowed as council put the 45' height in place UNTILL the district was completed".

They have a point about staff getting the job done, though the train station has Federal protection so it should be okay.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

1 - it includes the train station, which is a heritage site of note

2 - to send a statement to management at HRM that they need to get the Barrington South conservation district done, rather than making excuses. What DRC said was "this should not be allowed as council put the 45' height in place UNTILL the district was completed".

They have a point about staff getting the job done, though the train station has Federal protection so it should be okay.

The area under consideration consists of a vacant lot, Atlantic Superstore with surface parking, Westin Hotel (already over 22 meters) and Via Station.

Here is a Birds Eye View of the area under consideration and surrounding area that has 13.7 meter height limits. The blocks with 13.7 meter limits had become a nice neighbourhood of single detached homes and low rise residential (many in the 22 meter height vicinity). How long will the city be held back by these special interest groups and their unreasonable demands?

[Hali87]

I'd guess that many people are concerned about the train station being included. I didn't realize it was protected federally, and I think if this was made clear there would be less opposition. I don't understand why the height limits aren't just raised on the vacant properties and why the hotel and station are included; is it just a division of property thing?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

They have a point about staff getting the job done, though the train station has Federal protection so it should be okay.

Thanks for the explanation. That is interesting.

It isn't clear how these pieces are directly related. I'm not sure that adding more roadblocks is a great way to speed up City Hall. In the past there's been a lot of "let's wait until it's perfect" sentiment from council for example (sincere or not -- false criticism can certainly be used as a delay tactic) and it has mostly resulted in extremely little getting accomplished. This is a city that can draw out studies on a library for almost 30 years. I am fully confident that it's possible to create a bureaucratic deadlock that would keep these parking lots around for some time.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The area under consideration consists of a vacant lot, Atlantic Superstore with surface parking, Westin Hotel (already over 22 meters) and Via Station. <snip> How long will the city be held back by these special interest groups and their unreasonable demands?

Council and the citizens of HRM have made it clear that a heritage conservation district is desired in South Barrington. A major part of heritage districts is that the zoning be designed to conform to current building envelope. The issue is not wanting a heritage district, or allowing 22 meters, the issue is why can't HRM complete a simple HCD study in less than 8 years, so we can get on with our lives?

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'd guess that many people are concerned about the train station being included. I didn't realize it was protected federally, and I think if this was made clear there would be less opposition. I don't understand why the height limits aren't just raised on the vacant properties and why the hotel and station are included; is it just a division of property thing?

That is what the DRC was saying - just get the damn HCD done so we can have appropriate planning to protect the 35+ heritage buildings but allow the rest to be built and grow. I do not know why the staff has taken the case 17000 request for one lot and expanded it to the whole east side of the park. My understanding is the Superstore has not asked for this at this time.

Originally Posted by someone123

It isn't clear how these pieces are directly related. I'm not sure that adding more roadblocks is a great way to speed up City Hall. In the past there's been a lot of "let's wait until it's perfect" sentiment from council for example (sincere or not -- false criticism can certainly be used as a delay tactic) and it has mostly resulted in extremely little getting accomplished. This is a city that can draw out studies on a library for almost 30 years. I am fully confident that it's possible to create a bureaucratic deadlock that would keep these parking lots around for some time.

If Superstore had a proposal in that would be one thing, but my gut says that is 10-20 years away. The HCD would provide clarity and take all the restrictions off non-heritage buildings.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'd guess that many people are concerned about the train station being included. I didn't realize it was protected federally, and I think if this was made clear there would be less opposition. I don't understand why the height limits aren't just raised on the vacant properties and why the hotel and station are included; is it just a division of property thing?

It's not Penn Station, FFS, and I don't care that Phil Pacey seems to think it is. It is a pretty unremarkable building in reality. To suggest it is the reason for the lack of a policy to allow nearby parking lots and trash-strewn empty lots to be developed is simply posturing. I would suggest the same is true of the excuse that the Barrington South heritage plan or whatever it is needs to be finished before anything can be done. Once again we see development in Halifax held hostage by a fringe group of heritage loons who do not have broad public support. That area from Morris Street southbound is a disaster for the most part, with a handful of small interesting buildings scattered throughout slums, empty lots and 1950s industrial structures. It could be among the most valuable areas on the peninsula, but again HRM chooses to yield to obstructionists instead of making them get out of the way.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not Penn Station, FFS, and I don't care that Phil Pacey seems to think it is. It is a pretty unremarkable building in reality. To suggest it is the reason for the lack of a policy to allow nearby parking lots and trash-strewn empty lots to be developed is simply posturing. I would suggest the same is true of the excuse that the Barrington South heritage plan or whatever it is needs to be finished before anything can be done. Once again we see development in Halifax held hostage by a fringe group of heritage loons who do not have broad public support. That area from Morris Street southbound is a disaster for the most part, with a handful of small interesting buildings scattered throughout slums, empty lots and 1950s industrial structures. It could be among the most valuable areas on the peninsula, but again HRM chooses to yield to obstructionists instead of making them get out of the way.

While I agree that city council needs to be more pro-development instead of essentially bowing down to the heritage extremists -- your dramatic response would be more appropriate if there were actual proposals fighting for approval against this obstructionism.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

While I agree that city council needs to be more pro-development instead of essentially bowing down to the heritage extremists -- your dramatic response would be more appropriate if there were actual proposals fighting for approval against this obstructionism.

Nobody is going to go to the time and expense of developing a proposal that cannot possibly be approved because of bureaucratic roadblocks.

[Drybrain]

I didn't know about the Barrington South HCD issue. That's annoying, but it makes sense if that was the original understanding. Of course, the way forward is obvious—let's hurry up and implement the HCD and raise the limit. (And ignore Pacey's silly appeal to make the train station the max building height.)

Anyway, I don't think city council does bow down to heritage extremism—as I think I've said before, Halifax's heritage-conversation laws are unusually weak even by Canada's not-so-good standards, and the Heritage Trust's objections rarely result in any real action. The reason the city is seen as anti-development is not because of onerous heritage laws, but a general excess of red tape, which, obviously affects heritage issues too, if the HCD has been eight years in the making. (At that rate, an increasingly urgently needed Spring Garden Road HCD should be along by, what 2030?)

Anyway, rebuilding and re-granding (if I can invent a word) the area around Cornwallis Park should be a pretty major priority.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nobody is going to go to the time and expense of developing a proposal that cannot possibly be approved because of bureaucratic roadblocks.

Okay, simmer down Skye Halifax.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not Penn Station, FFS, and I don't care that Phil Pacey seems to think it is. It is a pretty unremarkable building in reality. To suggest it is the reason for the lack of a policy to allow nearby parking lots and trash-strewn empty lots to be developed is simply posturing. I would suggest the same is true of the excuse that the Barrington South heritage plan or whatever it is needs to be finished before anything can be done. Once again we see development in Halifax held hostage by a fringe group of heritage loons who do not have broad public support. That area from Morris Street southbound is a disaster for the most part, with a handful of small interesting buildings scattered throughout slums, empty lots and 1950s industrial structures. It could be among the most valuable areas on the peninsula, but again HRM chooses to yield to obstructionists instead of making them get out of the way.

It's not Penn Station, but it is definitely worth protecting, IMO. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I'd be pretty pissed if the train station was allowed to be knocked down because of oversight. If you find it unremarkable that's your prerogative but I don't find it unremarkable.

I do think that the rest of the properties should be developed though and I have no problem with the height limits being changed. It's a shame that the Superstore and Hollis/South lots are (for whatever reason) tied to the train station, and I think this would have probably gone much more smoothly if they were not.

I remember reading in HBD that the actual plan (in HBD!) was/is to raise height limits around Cornwallis park to intentionally create a sort of boxed-in "Central Park" effect. Is this still the plan?

I'm also beginning to realize that there seems to be a lot of variability in what different people consider to be "slums". I can't think of anything around Morris that I would think of as being a slum or even slum-like other than the handful of commercial buildings between Tim's and Superstore. And since they are commercial buildings I don't think of them as slums per se, although as other people have mentioned THOSE particular buildings would probably not be missed by anyone.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'm also beginning to realize that there seems to be a lot of variability in what different people consider to be "slums". I can't think of anything around Morris that I would think of as being a slum or even slum-like other than the handful of commercial buildings between Tim's and Superstore. And since they are commercial buildings I don't think of them as slums per se, although as other people have mentioned THOSE particular buildings would probably not be missed by anyone.

I look at the southern corner of Morris and Barrington as being slummy (the c-store and the building with Gingergrass in it) along with most of the west side of Barrington including the buildings next to Gingergrass, the old Inn beyond that, the federal building beyond that which was closed down for years - is it back in use? - and then the numerous buildings across from the Superstore on Barrington, which includes the empty lot where the South end Diner burned down last year. Really, aside from the Henry House, there isn't much there worth saving.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I look at the southern corner of Morris and Barrington as being slummy (the c-store and the building with Gingergrass in it) along with most of the west side of Barrington including the buildings next to Gingergrass, the old Inn beyond that, the federal building beyond that which was closed down for years - is it back in use? - and then the numerous buildings across from the Superstore on Barrington, which includes the empty lot where the South end Diner burned down last year. Really, aside from the Henry House, there isn't much there worth saving.

The Waverley Inn? Slummy?

http://waverleyinn.com/aboutus

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I look at the southern corner of Morris and Barrington as being slummy (the c-store and the building with Gingergrass in it) along with most of the west side of Barrington including the buildings next to Gingergrass, the old Inn beyond that, the federal building beyond that which was closed down for years - is it back in use? - and then the numerous buildings across from the Superstore on Barrington, which includes the empty lot where the South end Diner burned down last year. Really, aside from the Henry House, there isn't much there worth saving.

Boy, high standards! There's a lot of dreck on that stretch, but if you think that's slummy, I've got a neighbourhood in East Vancouver I'd like to show you...

There's a lot of good stuff too. I count ten buildings between Morris and South that should be protected for sure. (Not including the Papa Mario’s and Gingergrass buildings, but similar buildings have been given fantastic makeovers in the North End in the last few years.) The Waverly Inn, in particular, is a lovely building, and the ones adjacent to it would look great if someone were to do restore them to their original character.

Something like that is apparently in the works at 1230-1234 Barrington, which is supposed to undergo a restoration and rear-end addition.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Council and the citizens of HRM have made it clear that a heritage conservation district is desired in South Barrington. A major part of heritage districts is that the zoning be designed to conform to current building envelope. The issue is not wanting a heritage district, or allowing 22 meters, the issue is why can't HRM complete a simple HCD study in less than 8 years, so we can get on with our lives?

"Council and the citizens of HRM have made it clear that a heritage conservation district is desired in South Barrington". I can't accept this statement. I bet that if a poll were taken in the HRM that the results would indicate that close to 90% of citizens have neither heard of the South Barrington Heritage Conservation District nor could care a less about it. Although I think most citizens in the HRM want some level of heritage protection I would bet that most do not want entire sections of the city to become stagnant. Instead, heritage protection of heritage buildings would suffice.

This idea of stopping progress in whole areas of the city to protect a few buildings is just an example of Phil Pacey's over_the_top idealism spreading like a virus.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I look at the southern corner of Morris and Barrington as being slummy (the c-store and the building with Gingergrass in it) along with most of the west side of Barrington including the buildings next to Gingergrass, the old Inn beyond that, the federal building beyond that which was closed down for years - is it back in use? - and then the numerous buildings across from the Superstore on Barrington, which includes the empty lot where the South end Diner burned down last year. Really, aside from the Henry House, there isn't much there worth saving.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same area. I wouldn't consider this area slummy at all. Maybe a little subpar compared to the nicest parts of downtown, but still one of the nicer parts of the city. Definitely nicer than the average in many, many, parts of Canada.

When I think of "slum" I'm thinking of over-crowded, extremely unsafe, barely-held together neighbourhoods where peoples' everyday lives are literally struggles to survive. We don't really have much of this in the HRM. An example of a building that I would legitimately call "slummy" would have been the MET building on Gottingen, but that's gone now. I don't get the least bit uncomfortable when walking through the Barrington & Morris area and I certainly don't feel bad for the people living there (as I would for people living in actual slum conditions).

There are some forumers who think that Yonge St. in Toronto looks like it belongs in a third world country. I would say that calling Barrington & Morris "slummy" is an equivalent statement. I guess it's all relative.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

"Council and the citizens of HRM have made it clear that a heritage conservation district is desired in South Barrington". I can't accept this statement. I bet that if a poll were taken in the HRM that the results would indicate that close to 90% of citizens have neither heard of the South Barrington Heritage Conservation District nor could care a less about it. Although I think most citizens in the HRM want some level of heritage protection I would bet that most do not want entire sections of the city to become stagnant. Instead, heritage protection of heritage buildings would suffice.

This idea of stopping progress in whole areas of the city to protect a few buildings is just an example of Phil Pacey's over_the_top idealism spreading like a virus.

I would like to comment that I am totally behind the South Barrington Conservation district. It's not necessarily a bad idea just because Phil Pacey supports it.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I would like to comment that I am totally behind the South Barrington Conservation district. It's not necessarily a bad idea just because Phil Pacey supports it.

I don't disagree with the idea of protecting 35 heritage buildings in the proposed South Barrington Conservation district - that needs to be done.

However, at issue before Council on April 30th is the area illustrated below (I illustrated the area on a Bing Maps Birds Eye view). The staff presentation is a logical one. HRM_by_Design plans had originally intended for height limits in this area to be 22 meters and staff included excerpts from HRM_by_Design to illustrate this - http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/130430ca1015.pdf .

Two wrongs don't make a right (and won't result in progress). Waye Mason seems to be arguing against the amendment proposed by Staff. So what heritage building is being preserved if he votes against this amendment? The Via Station is already federally protected, the Westin Hotel is already well over 22 meters, The Atlantic Superstore isn't a heritage site and the vacant lot is vacant because of a fire.

Protection of the heritage buildings in the proposed South Barrington Heritage District can still be advocated without resorting to Phil Pacey type tactics of stopping unrelated progress.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't disagree with the idea of protecting 35 heritage buildings in the proposed South Barrington Conservation district - that needs to be done.

You're right for sure—and that map makes clear how badly the area needs redevelopment. But I think the issue (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the height increase was tied to the creation of the HCD, which still hasn't happened. So I think Mason is saying, let's get them both done, as soon as reasonably possible. (Again, if I'm wrong, correct me.)

Anyway, just a word on conservation districts: they're definitely not stagnant zones, and can actually expedite economic investment. Look at Toronto's conservation districts: 21 of them, and ten more under study, including in high-development areas like Yorkville and Queen West.

As an aside, it's kind of lame that Metlej is tearing down the last South Street building that survived the fire.