[Halifax] Gorsebrook Park (1048 Wellington) | 30 m | 10 fl | Completed

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

MasonWatts tried a new and interesting argument today: "It's not about the height, it's about the design!". As distinct from the usual "It's not about the design; it's TOO TALL!!!".

So MR. Mason is a liar by his own admission because this has always been a height issue to him for this street.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Mason said the developer would not be allowed to proceed with the proposal in the downtown
Tomorrow CDAC commences the process to prepare a regional centre plan. In my opinion public confidence in the process is vital and how the council handles a development proposal that does not meet the requirements of the existing MPS will impact the have consequences for such confidence.
Staff have recommended rejection of the proposal, a rare event and based their opinion on sound planning as well as the refusal of the developer to consider changing the proposal. As I said yesterday, if outside councillors want to approve such projects because all they can see are dollar signs they should be willing to ensure the financial benefits accrue to that area of HRM.

This isn't really accurate. The proposal was originally for 12 and 10 stories. Here are the original renderings - http://imageshack.com/a/img842/4772/94oh.jpg, http://imageshack.com/a/img546/7677/5ju3.jpg, http://imageshack.com/a/img62/3084/00ub.jpg, which I downloaded from the original proposal from the halifax.ca site in September 2013. Even the original heights of 12 and 10 stories didn't look out of place in that neighbourhood; now two stories have been chopped off each so the buildings are even shorter.

There are very few adjacent single homes in that neighbourhood (it backs onto a park and has a higher midrise apartment on one side). Some of the neigbouring homes are owned by SMU. In my opinion, it is an ideal location for this type of development.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This isn't really accurate. The proposal was originally for 12 and 10 stories. Here are the original renderings - http://imageshack.com/a/img842/4772/94oh.jpg, http://imageshack.com/a/img546/7677/5ju3.jpg, http://imageshack.com/a/img62/3084/00ub.jpg, which I downloaded from the original proposal from the halifax.ca site in September 2013. Even the original heights of 12 and 10 stories didn't look out of place in that neighbourhood; now two stories have been chopped off each so the buildings are even shorter.

There are very few adjacent single homes in that neighbourhood (it backs onto a park and has a higher midrise apartment on one side). Some of the neigbouring homes are owned by SMU. In my opinion, it is an ideal location for this type of development.

I'll concede my words " refusing to alter the proposal " are not as accurate as they could be so let me say this : The developer refused to sufficiently alter the proposal to gain staff approval. Seperation was one issue amongst several.
It is a very rare event for staff to send a recommendation against a proposal to the council. If you have a day or two feel free to go through the years of council minutes to find such a recommendation.

[JET]

Originally Posted by hokus83

So MR. Mason is a liar by his own admission because this has always been a height issue to him for this street.

You are stepping over a line with that statement. You don't want to end up with deleted posts.

The height is an issue because of the massing; Waye said that the other tall buildings have setbacks, this does not. It too tall with that massing.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

You are stepping over a line with that statement. You don't want to end up with deleted posts.

The height is an issue because of the massing; Waye said that the other tall buildings have setbacks, this does not. It too tall with that massing.

Which is why I find it confusing that it was stated the buildings wouldn't be allowed downtown—surely downtown is a place where a large building with a sheer wall, with no setbacks, IS allowed? (There are a lot of them, anyway, including new constructions. I'm sure I'm just missing something here.)

Having said that, while I'm personally completely fine with the height of these buildings, I think some of the people jumping on the anti-Mason/Watts side here need to remember that they're just enforcing the existing zoning—the street does have those old towers, but most of it is detached houses, and the lots in question are zoned R-2A (I think). The most generously zoned lots on the street are zoned R-3, and even that permits only houses or a maximum apartment-building height of four storeys. (Excepting height allowances.)

This isn't like a "Halifax-stifles-growth" thing, either. As I just posted in a thread in the Canada forum, addressing a different topic, this is a really standard urban residential zoning strategy. Most of the City of Toronto, for example, is zoned "neighbourhood," which means you can't build anything taller than four storeys, just like the R-3 zoning found in peninsular Halifax. That includes every single inner-city but non-downtown streets similar to Wellington, lined mostly with houses and other low-rise uses, which is most of the city.

Pesonally, I think it's important that zoning bring a degree of stability to neighbourhoods, but I do wish that things would swing at least a little bit toward more strategically placed mid-rise intensification on "stable" residential streets.

In any case, I'm positive that if this exact same project had been proposed on an equivalent street in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver, it'd be dead on the ground. No developer would even bother—it contradicts the zoning and council/staff would kibosh it instantly. Council are actually being pretty lenient with this proposal by allowing it to proceed to public meeting. And councillors who voted against that, well, they're really just upholding a pretty standard residential zoning arrangement that's similar to those found in pretty much every city in North America, including those that are trying to boost density. So personal attacks aren't really called for here.

[hokus83]

its not a personal attack, its a fact. And public political figures are fare game for scrutiny. You guys take passive aggressive jabs all the time at each other at every opportunity. I'm just calling a spade a spade

[JET]

Originally Posted by hokus83

its not a personal attack, its a fact. And public political figures are fare game for scrutiny. You guys take passive aggressive jabs all the time at each other at every opportunity. I'm just calling a spade a spade

and sometimes that doesn't work so well. It's your call.

[TheLittleGuy]

I do not understand the issue or concerns around height of buildings. It’s time to embrace economic development, not find reasons or excuses to limit it or slow it down. If an individual wants to build a private building and others want to move in it, it should move forward because the building is not harming the city or the province.

The city needs take a hands off approach, and just let development happen.

[JET]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

I do not understand the issue or concerns around height of buildings. It’s time to embrace economic development, not find reasons or excuses to limit it or slow it down. If an individual wants to build a private building and others want to move in it, it should move forward because the building is not harming the city or the province.

The city needs take a hands off approach, and just let development happen.

Welcome to the forum, I can't say that I agree at all with your free-for-all approach to development, but always good to have another voice.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

I do not understand the issue or concerns around height of buildings. It’s time to embrace economic development, not find reasons or excuses to limit it or slow it down. If an individual wants to build a private building and others want to move in it, it should move forward because the building is not harming the city or the province.

The city needs take a hands off approach, and just let development happen.

I appreciate the sentiment and I know why some people think things will be better this way, but: Development just doesn't happen that way, anywhere in the world.

Halifax's city government is no more hands-on or hands-off than that of an average North American city. (Actually, we probably ARE more hands-off than some of the more progressive American cities nowadays.)

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Which is why I find it confusing that it was stated the buildings wouldn't be allowed downtown—surely downtown is a place where a large building with a sheer wall, with no setbacks, IS allowed? (There are a lot of them, anyway, including new constructions. I'm sure I'm just missing something here.)

I don't think think this could be proposed downtown because HRMbD requires greater separation between towers for a project like this. I think staff are basing recommendations re: tower separation on "what is allowed downtown" until the Centre Plan is complete. At least that's the impression I'm getting from this project and the Quinpool/Robie proposals.

[TheLittleGuy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I appreciate the sentiment and I know why some people think things will be better this way, but: Development just doesn't happen that way, anywhere in the world.

Halifax's city government is no more hands-on or hands-off than that of an average North American city. (Actually, we probably ARE more hands-off than some of the more progressive American cities nowadays.)

You might be right, however after recent business trips to Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto I noticed no raging debates on there local news programs or newspapers deciding if a building that is 20 stories is too much to build. It's not even discussed on talk radio. People just build them, and the population embraces it. Perhaps our people are small minded? Maybe we are a simple people who don't understand that new construction, and tall construction is a good thing? Perhaps we are a people who are isolated from our fellow citizens? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I find it odd that in a province with little economic activity, that we seem to go out of our way to stop or slow any new economic activity which comes along. It is odd, and I don't have an answer.

[Hali87]

I wonder how much of Halifax's development approval process is based on precedent. Mason often seems to vote based on "the kind of precedent this will set" rather than based on how much sense it makes in its specific context (ie. being pragmatic). I wonder if this is built into the system at all?

[TheLittleGuy]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think staff are basing recommendations re: tower separation on "what is allowed downtown" until the Centre Plan is complete.

I think that is the problem, if someone has never owned or operated a business, because they work for government doesn't mean they understand the construction business or ROI's and so on. I'm not sure we need a "Centre Plan", I'm not sure we need "city staff" giving "recommendations" on issues like this.

[TheLittleGuy]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder how much of Halifax's development approval process is based on precedent. Mason often seems to vote based on "the kind of precedent this will set" rather than based on how much sense it makes in its specific context (ie. being pragmatic). I wonder if this is built into the system at all?

Maybe we need the provincial government to take this power away from the city? Maybe no city government should be deciding when and where and how tall a building project happens?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

You might be right, however after recent business trips to Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto I noticed no raging debates on there local news programs or newspapers deciding if a building that is 20 stories is too much to build. It's not even discussed on talk radio. People just build them, and the population embraces it.

Oh my. I can assure you, at least, that this impression is mistaken. There are loads of raging debates in all those cities, and "condo" is almost a dirty word in some circles, especially in Toronto. Development is certainly not uncritically embraced, and there are very tight stipulations around what developers can build (especially in Toronto). It's also worth noting that all three of those cities have heritage bylaws significantly more restrictive on development than ours. Vancouver's skyline of tall but not very tall, generally thin towers, is mostly due to the city's restrictions on building height and viewplanes toward the mountains.

Anyway, here are some folks in an urban neighbourhood in central Vancouver banding together to fight tall buildings, in principle.

Here's the website for some people in Toronto fighting against a mid-rise building on a major arterial street between two subway stations, and even using the scaremongering phrase "condos are coming!"

Here are some more people in Toronto opposing a six-storey building on another major thoroughfare, arguing that it will "scar the neighbourhood." They have hundreds of supporters in the neighbourhood and were atcually successful in getting their local councillor to draft special zoning for their street, decreasing the allowed density. Toronto has a massive spine of highrises, but these are almost all in the financial district or up and down the spine of Yonge Street. Everywhere else, they're bitterly opposed. NIMBYism is so intense it's inspired this satirical Twitter account.

Here are some people in Calgary's densest neighbourhood opposing a 22-storey building. Here are some people in Calgary's inner suburbs opposing a cell-phone tower.

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

Perhaps our people are small minded? Maybe we are a simple people who don't understand that new construction, and tall construction is a good thing?

I don't think Haligonians are any more small or big-minded than anyone else. Sometimes there are good reasons to oppose a development or ask for it to be changed; other times it's just self-interest or opposition to change. But that is found in abundance from coast to coast.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder how much of Halifax's development approval process is based on precedent. Mason often seems to vote based on "the kind of precedent this will set" rather than based on how much sense it makes in its specific context (ie. being pragmatic). I wonder if this is built into the system at all?

The problem is that planning staff seem to make stuff up as they go along.

What is the situation on Wellington St?

We have a 12-storey and a 10-storey building. Precedent.

We have R-2 (?) zoning for the remainder of the block which dates back god-knows how far. Decades, easily. Completely out of date with unknown rationale.

So one could easily argue (as presumably the developer did) that common sense would say that the precedent should take precedence over the ancient zoning.

Instead staff say it is too tall and too massive for the site. Based on what, we aren't sure.

Halifax should not be turning away tax revenue, especially when Council is getting a raise next week. It would be nice to have a growing tax base to pay for our gold-plated council.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

Maybe we need the provincial government to take this power away from the city? Maybe no city government should be deciding when and where and how tall a building project happens?

Heck no. The Provincial Government-- all parties...-- and decades of spineless politicians has been the worst thing for Halifax and the worst block to economic development both in Halifax and the province itself. The Province couldn't "economically develop" its way out of a wet paper bag.

No way in hell I want some Yarmouth or other rural politician with any power over development decisions in downtown Halifax. Otherwise, we would have nothing, certainly no new library, no HRMxD, and likely no Centre Plan process. And we'd have three more Yarmouth ferries and plenty of well funded dying 19th Century Pulp Mills.

[counterfactual]

I'm open to arguments about stability of neighborhoods. Absolutely. Often, such arguments are based on expectations of property owners; many who would have purchased property on a street filled with family homes, with nothing beyond two stories. Plopping a 10 storey tower there, would be a serious breach of such continuity and stability in that community.

But this simply does not apply to a street with 10 and 12 storey buildings, as Keith has noted. If I own property here, I have to expect that maybe, at some point, another taller development may be proposed and built. You would have to be seriously dishonest to pretend not.

Instead, the debate goes off to lalaland, where we're supposed to ignore reality, ignore past precedents, and pretend this is a single-unit-family home area only, which is just not true.

Progressives and progressive city planning is supposed to be evidence based. Not based on pandering to anti-development sentiment of existing property owners.

It's also unfair for Staff to use HRMxD design requirements for proposals like this. Why? Because the whole point to making those requirements is that, in return, they offer development certainty. That is, if you follow these rules, you get to build, and you get to build to a certain density and height. That is not the case here. It's not fair to apply massing requirements where you don't, in return, allow for greater height.

Does someone honestly believe that if this proposal conformed to downtown HRMxD standards (yes, height and massing included) that Waye Mason and Jennifer Watts would vote for it?

*crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Hali87]

I think Mason probably would, if it conformed to HRMbD and maybe went a bit extra to take into account the adjacent houses and park. Although having a streetwall (which I think is required under HRMbD) isn't actually really desirable here - it would only make sense if the entire street (or at least a large part of that side of it) were to eventually be redeveloped in a similar way.

Then again it's hard to say. I don't think this would be allowed under the Centre Plan, which apparently becomes policy soon.