[Halifax] Navy Lane Condos (2183 Gottingen) | 24 m | 8 fl | U/C

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the folks appealing this would actually be okay with that.

The only credible statement from this group, as far as I can tell, is that it would be better for the buildings to contain more two- and three-bedroom units.

And to be fair, it is considerably larger than most of the street's built environment (there are big towers nearby, but let's be honest: They're awful). Having said that, it's pretty sensitive to the street, especially with the alterations made specificial in response to community concerns.

But those reasons alone are obviously not why they're launching an appeal. If you look at Clare Waque's Facebook page, she goes into a laundry list of complaints ranging from construction noise affecting theatre performances (I imagine construction will be in the daytime, so probably a non-issue?) to her own development potential to the impact on her garden. There's also a lot of rhetoric about greedy capitalists and so on. It's pretty ridiculous.

You you should write a reply to her silliness in The Coast.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the folks appealing this would actually be okay with that.

The only credible statement from this group, as far as I can tell, is that it would be better for the buildings to contain more two- and three-bedroom units.

And to be fair, it is considerably larger than most of the street's built environment (there are big towers nearby, but let's be honest: They're awful). Having said that, it's pretty sensitive to the street, especially with the alterations made specificial in response to community concerns.

True, if it's supposed to be affordable for families, why all the studios and one beds? That is actually a legitimate reason to question the development. They could run on that alone. Why do they have to muddle the argument with all this other stuff?

[JET]

you guys seem to be arguing against the development, isn't this supposed to be a development forum?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

you guys seem to be arguing against the development, isn't this supposed to be a development forum?

I support the development, but it's fair to point out elements of it that could be improved.

(I would pitch a piece countering Waque's, Counter, but I don't think I'm quite versed enough—would have to do a wack (no pun intended) of research.)

[worldlyhaligonian]

I think the big issue on display here is that there are too many hoops to jump through!

Didn't this thing already go through a ton of public hearings, etc? I'm not saying points aren't valid, but really? Appeals at this stage are just another chance that shouldn't exist to shoot something down.

This should be one, taller building on the lot and the rest "in context"... but that would be too much for these height phobic people.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

This should be one, taller building on the lot and the rest "in context"... but that would be too much for these height phobic people.

There is a term for this as it turns out. Dictionary.com refers to Batophobia as an abnormal fear of being near an object of great height, such as a skyscraper or mountain. This probably also applies to proposals to have one built in your neighbourhood.

I want this development to go forward also, but if provincial money is going toward affordable units, and there are few units for families to be able to take advantage of, then this should have been addressed.

[ILoveHalifax]

Do we only have to benefit families and never the individual?
Governments and politicians are constantly appealing to families rather than voters.
They loose my vote when they exclude me, a single person.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Do we only have to benefit families and never the individual?
Governments and politicians are constantly appealing to families rather than voters.
They loose my vote when they exclude me, a single person.

here, here!

It's like: wait! So, this affordable housing accommodates mostly singles? SINGLE PEOPLE?! Well, stop the f***ing thing!

ALSO: IT'LL BLOCK THE SUN FROM MY LOVELY URBAN GARDEN AND NEW CHICKEN COOPS WHERE MY CHICKEN LAYS 2 EGGS PER YEAR THAT I SELL AT FARMERS MARKET AS "ORGANIC" JUST FOR ADDED STREET CRED WITH MY HIPSTER COOL NORTHENDER OPEN MIC POETRY (DEVELOPER) SLAM.

[curnhalio]

As has been mentioned before, it's not even all that affordable. You can find plenty of 1 beds for $780 or less in Halifax, granted these will probably be the nicest ones out there.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I support the development, but it's fair to point out elements of it that could be improved.

(I would pitch a piece countering Waque's, Counter, but I don't think I'm quite versed enough—would have to do a wack (no pun intended) of research.)

Why? Waque isn't versed at all in this, she thinks construction is going to be going all the time at theatre hours 9pm- 2am and disrupt operations when realistically no construction takes place at those hours. You need minimal information to counter every concern she has and it just shows a lack of laziness and being a shouting idiot on her part.

When does this appeal get rejected?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Do we only have to benefit families and never the individual?
Governments and politicians are constantly appealing to families rather than voters.
They loose my vote when they exclude me, a single person.

I think part of the problem is that most affordable housing in the core is not family appropriate, so without enhancing the availability of multi-bedroom affordable housing, we run the risk of hollowing out the core so that it's ONLY for single people. Healthy communities have variety. If you decided that you wanted to have a family, would you like to have your choice limited to only outside of the Circumferential Highway?

Also, it's much easier to make affordable bachelor pads or one bedrooms. Additional encouragement for 3+ might be appropriate.

You may be one of the rare single people who vote. Most voters tend to be parts of larger family units.... I dunno, maybe it's because they feel they have more to loose (future of their children)?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I support the development, but it's fair to point out elements of it that could be improved.

In Halifax, unfortunately, there's been a mindset that decisions should be delayed until everybody's happy, which of course is impossible. Timid regional councillors have kicked the can down the road on all sorts of issues and now problems like traffic and poor transit have snowballed and require more expensive and disruptive solutions. Issues like affordable housing and the health of inner-city neighbourhoods like Gottingen have a similar flavour. They need people to pull the trigger and make some short-term and possibly risky or obviously imperfect moves now, not in 5 years or 10 years or never. Thankfully, some private developers have already been doing this.

A lot of the suggestions for improvement here have to do with general concerns over affordable housing that could be better addressed by another development. They're not arguments for stopping or modifying this particular development (which may not even be practical). If anything it seems like killing one bedroom developments would restrict the housing supply and hurt the availability of affordable units of every size.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

In Halifax, unfortunately, there's been a mindset that decisions should be delayed until everybody's happy, which of course is impossible. Timid regional councillors have kicked the can down the road on all sorts of issues and now problems like traffic and poor transit have snowballed and require more expensive and disruptive solutions. Issues like affordable housing and the health of inner-city neighbourhoods like Gottingen have a similar flavour. They need people to pull the trigger and make some short-term and possibly risky or obviously imperfect moves now, not in 5 years or 10 years or never. Thankfully, some private developers have already been doing this.

A lot of the suggestions for improvement here have to do with general concerns over affordable housing that could be better addressed by another development. They're not arguments for stopping or modifying this particular development (which may not even be practical). If anything it seems like killing one bedroom developments would restrict the housing supply and hurt the availability of affordable units of every size.

The concerns expressed also have the air of utter BS. I don't believe for a minute that they care about affordable housing and that they would support multiple bedroom units. It's just a BS reason to try to delay, foot drag, block, obstruct.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The concerns expressed also have the air of utter BS. I don't believe for a minute that they care about affordable housing and that they would support multiple bedroom units. It's just a BS reason to try to delay, foot drag, block, obstruct.

I read today that Bev Miller & the Obstructionists (now there's a group that hits all the sour notes) are being represented at the UARB by Kommissar Howard Epstein, who is giving them apparently free legal services.

Unbelievable.

[JET]

I was in behind the empty lot between the old Food Emporium and the 'bus stop' buildings. The empty lot has been clered out and gravel was being levelled about (parking?) looks a lot better than the Goggle street view.
Also noticed that near the corner of Corwallis St, on the same side (East) there is a BMO funding sign on a small building, and a big dumpster on the sidewalk. That buildings been a blight, maybe something positive there.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by JET

I was in behind the empty lot between the old Food Emporium and the 'bus stop' buildings. The empty lot has been clered out and gravel was being levelled about (parking?) looks a lot better than the Goggle street view.

That was done for the gottingen 250 festival that was over the weekend, its where they had a ll the events setup.

Anyone know when this court appeal nonsense is going to be done with so construction can get under way. I'm really looking forward to these ones getting started and done.

[TheNovaScotian]

The funniest part about the entire thing is that the single household is the fastest rising demographic and most likely the largest in the area.
Why would it serve anyone to fight against the trend and mandate developers to have to try?
I'm of the mind that more rental units available will ultimately regulate the price of the units in the area. Instead of making a stand on this one building, why don't they try to encourage more height allowing for more units in the area making the whole area more affordable?

[JET]

Originally Posted by hokus83

That was done for the gottingen 250 festival that was over the weekend, its where they had a ll the events setup.

Anyone know when this court appeal nonsense is going to be done with so construction can get under way. I'm really looking forward to these ones getting started and done.

Ahh, well they certainly cleaned that area up

[hokus83]

Has this gone through the court appeal posses yet? I find its a bit insane that someone that wants to plant strawberries in a gravel parking lot can even take this to an appeal court. I was really hopping construction would be under way for both of these by now.

How long does this appeal nonsense normally take

[hokus83]

(any "aggrieved person" may appeal the decision of council or the development officer, as the case may be. An "aggrieved person" is defined in the MGA and the HRM Charter, but typically involves an individual or group of individuals who bona fide believes the decision of the council will adversely affect the value, or reasonable enjoyment, of the person's property or the reasonable enjoyment of property occupied by the person(s).

the Board cannot allow an appeal unless it determines that the decision of council does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy, or that the decision of the development officer conflicts with the provisions of the land-use by-law or the subdivision by-law. All evidence and argument at the hearing must be limited to the issue under review in the appeal. The Board must confirm council's decision if it is based on a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the municipal planning strategy, even if the appellant can identify a different interpretation which is contrary to council's decision)

I don't see how this even fits under the rules for an appeal. It doesn't seem to meet the guidelines to me