[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[Keith P.]

Well, the city doesn't build new schools. The province does, and what we get are low-bid structures of uninspiring design and barely acceptable utility. Of course, that is the other end of the spectrum from the overdone, extravagantly expensive library. Some balance would be nice.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, the city doesn't build new schools. The province does, and what we get are low-bid structures of uninspiring design and barely acceptable utility. Of course, that is the other end of the spectrum from the overdone, extravagantly expensive library. Some balance would be nice.

I am very very curious to see how it goes with the design for the new Lemarchant Elementary School. As you say, it is the province (and not even the department of education but the department of transportation and infrastructure) who builds schools, and it seems it is done on a "template" basis. However, this new elementary school will be the first one in a long long time that will be built in an urban setting. Given that the rest of the elementary schools built in the last number if years have all been in rural or suburban settings where there are not the same space constraints, I am quite curious to see what will be done.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I am very very curious to see how it goes with the design for the new Lemarchant Elementary School. As you say, it is the province (and not even the department of education but the department of transportation and infrastructure) who builds schools, and it seems it is done on a "template" basis. However, this new elementary school will be the first one in a long long time that will be built in an urban setting. Given that the rest of the elementary schools built in the last number if years have all been in rural or suburban settings where there are not the same space constraints, I am quite curious to see what will be done.

Going back about 10 years(?) and the 'Imagine' process of HRSB there were many people of the opinion that a school is more than a school and should include space for community use and perhaps daycare. The community use aspect would require HRM funding and a realisation that a structure that is open only for education purposes is a waste of precious resources. Talk to a community and ask all age groups what they want their money to produce.

Include a new school in the Infrastructure programme, previous Liberal governments in Nova Scotia refused to use the programme for university and school projects and Dalhousie received federal funds due to Mary Clancy, M.P. Dal put up the balance when Premier Savage, a former chairman of Dartmouth School Board refused to put any money into education projects. At the same time Savage had a row with Dave Dingwall over Dingwall's favourite project at CBU and Dingwall held up approval of Savage's pet projects until they cut a deal and a bingo hall was added to the Dartmouth Sportsplex where smoking was allowed despite the addition being named a Wellness Centre.
We can only hope that some time soon HRM and the province will make public their priority projects well in advance of political bickering and horse trading,

[Keith P.]

The problem with municipalities wanting schools to be used for community purposes - something that I agree can make sense if there is a need - is that they do not fund nor operate schools. The school boards run them, so after-hours use comes out of their budget. Until that fundamental problem is solved I doubt we will see much in the way of community programming.

[Hali87]

I'm not really sure how this works. Citadel and Halifax West both have large auditoriums that are regularly used for non school-related events, and I've actually gone to council meetings/presentations at the new West and CPA. Maybe the P3 arrangements somehow make it easier to rent out portions of the school (if I remember right both of those auditoriums were built mostly through private fundraising) or maybe the older schools just don't have facilities that are as useful to the community (my high school, J. L. Ilsley, comes to mind. Other than maybe the gym, the kitchen facilities or the wood shop, I can't really see any spaces in it being very useful to non-students - even the soccer field wasn't very good.)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'm not really sure how this works. Citadel and Halifax West both have large auditoriums that are regularly used for non school-related events, and I've actually gone to council meetings/presentations at the new West and CPA. Maybe the P3 arrangements somehow make it easier to rent out portions of the school (if I remember right both of those auditoriums were built mostly through private fundraising) or maybe the older schools just don't have facilities that are as useful to the community (my high school, J. L. Ilsley, comes to mind. Other than maybe the gym, the kitchen facilities or the wood shop, I can't really see any spaces in it being very useful to non-students - even the soccer field wasn't very good.)

I agree. I really don't see the point of this. I get the usual sentiment behind the move "give it to the community!", but for what purpose? Again, another key sentiment here is just a NIMBYism; giving these centrally located surplus sites to community groups prevents developers from building something that may bring new populations and change the neighborhood.

[portapetey]

The developer is saying he will donate a whole floor of this building to the IWK for a Ronald McDonald House style accommodation:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...-iwk-1.3344642

Generous? Cynical and manipulative? Does it matter?

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The developer is saying he will donate a whole floor of this building to the IWK for a Ronald McDonald House style accommodation:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...-iwk-1.3344642

Generous? Cynical and manipulative? Does it matter?

I would say more that it is both generous and self-interested, but I don't mean that in a bad way. Having something be a win-win situation is not at all a bad thing. My question would only be wondering what exactly is being talked about, who manages it (IWK?) and who pays for its operational costs.

[Dmajackson]

District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee will be discussing this proposal next week;

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/D78P...5d78pac-b1.pdf

Staff seem to be giving a passing grade but they have some concerns with the height.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee will be discussing this proposal next week;

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/D78P...5d78pac-b1.pdf

Staff seem to be giving a passing grade but they have some concerns with the height.

Shocked that staff are troubled by height! Can't wait until the planning office has a generational turnover.

[portapetey]

Really like some of the updated renderings. This looks fantastic to my eye. And it's back up to 30 stories?

I really, really hope it gets approved along with the Westwood development next door.

[someone123]

Here's one of the renderings from the report:



I think it looks good too, and the height adds some variety.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Wow, that density would really help Quinpool businesses as well.

[counterfactual]

Awesome!

[Hali87]

Somewhat paradoxically, contemporary planning theory tends to encourage density and mixed uses but also tends to encourage midrise (and by extension, discourage large towers - towers DO have some actual disadvantages in most contexts). So I wouldn't necessarily count on a turnover in staff resulting in 40-storey towers, although that's a possible outcome. We are getting to a point where we will have to balance height limits against the rate at which we are willing to demolish/redevelop older/smaller buildings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

We are getting to a point where we will have to balance height limits against the rate at which we are willing to demolish/redevelop older/smaller buildings.

One of the weird views that I hope really will go away in the future is the idea that capping building heights leads to more stable neighbourhoods and heritage preservation. Some people even think that height limits make housing more affordable; they are confusing cause and effect. Desirable neighbourhoods tend to get shiny condo towers. Developers' power to turn undesirable neighbourhoods into expensive neighbourhoods by building towers is limited. If the Toronto condo developers all decamped to Detroit they'd go bankrupt pretty quickly.

This is a prime 30 storey building site because it's on two wide streets and there's a desire to preserve the character of the side streets. There are few candidate building sites so the heights need to be taller to achieve the same population density. Hopefully the need for more population density on the peninsula is something else that more people are starting to understand. It used to be so common in Halifax for people to demand low population density and high service levels, but they're a trade-off.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

One of the weird views that I hope really will go away in the future is the idea that capping building heights leads to more stable neighbourhoods and heritage preservation. Some people even think that height limits make housing more affordable; they are confusing cause and effect. Desirable neighbourhoods tend to get shiny condo towers. Developers' power to turn undesirable neighbourhoods into expensive neighbourhoods by building towers is limited. If the Toronto condo developers all decamped to Detroit they'd go bankrupt pretty quickly.

This is a prime 30 storey building site because it's on two wide streets and there's a desire to preserve the character of the side streets. There are few candidate building sites so the heights need to be taller to achieve the same population density. Hopefully the need for more population density on the peninsula is something else that more people are starting to understand. It used to be so common in Halifax for people to demand low population density and high service levels, but they're a trade-off.

Well said.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Somewhat paradoxically, contemporary planning theory tends to encourage density and mixed uses but also tends to encourage midrise (and by extension, discourage large towers - towers DO have some actual disadvantages in most contexts). So I wouldn't necessarily count on a turnover in staff resulting in 40-storey towers, although that's a possible outcome. We are getting to a point where we will have to balance height limits against the rate at which we are willing to demolish/redevelop older/smaller buildings.

Yeah, it isn't like young planners are gaga for towers. My read on the current planning trends is that mid-rise (i.e., what they call the human scale) is the generally preferred model, except in certain contexts.

[scryer]

Unfortunately the tower-scare is real. Anyone have anymore insight into this?

But towers can be done right, and I bring Vancouver in as an example. Generally I find that things don't get built here unless they meet the street very meticulously. Having small retail available on the ground floor, or offices; having landscaped your surrounding sidewalk (or even widening it), and other small street-scaping techniques will help keep the city walkable. The tower is just a tower, it's really the podium design and how the tower meets the street level that really positively impacts the city/area.

And from what I can see, this proposal is doing just that! The height just equals more business and the amenities will provide jobs. It's a good looking proposal. I hope that the committees can brave it and let one tower (just shy of 100 metres) pull through just to see what happens.

[counterfactual]

For some reason, the discussion seems to move from extreme to extreme.

I was sarcastically critiquing HRM planning staff because it seems no matter what the height of a proposal-- 4, 5, 10, 30 storeys-- they tend to always have a problem with height.

To ridicule that way of thinking about planning and development isn't to also support the opposite extreme: that I, or others who criticize the city planners, for 40 towers all over the city.

Some sites are more appropriate for 30 storeys than others. This is one, as someone123 has pointed out.

I just wouldn't mind an approach to planning and development in the city, wherein a proposal's height isn't almost always a problem for staff.