General Updates and News

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Sorry, no.

They are legislated and are there for reasonable, legitimate appeals.

Not frivolous appeals that are there not to adjudicate legitimate rights or claims, but simply to add extra costs to development.

Council is not fallible. But your post assumes appeal appeals are infallible. #Whoops

PS: Courts can award costs, if they appeal the UARB's decision. They should here, significantly.

Well Council approved a project and gave what is basically a density bonus for a "bonus" that doesn't actually exist.

These projects themselves seem fine and may be a good development. But there is a significant issue in this case with fairness and transparency in the process.

[hokus83]

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hokus83

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

The username choice speaks for itself, really.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This isn't an affordable housing project. The DAs do not require anything to be affordable. Council provided additional height and density based on a misunderstanding of the project. Public and Council support for the project is based on a perceived benefit that does not actually exist. #whoops

That's true about the DA, but I kind of doubt a charitable organization like the Housing Trust is trying to sneak a market-rate development through. At 50/50 market rate/rent-geared-to-income, it's a good mix and frankly, Gottingen can stand to be a bit spiffed up. I don't agree with the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats school of thought on gentrification, but developments like this are part of managing gentrification. And gentrification/revitalization is desirable, if its negative aspects (displacement, mainly) can be mitigated and communities remain inclusive.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by hokus83

What a surprise doing a thread search for planarchy shows the username complaining and fighting against developments in every post. Where do these trolls come from.

You just don't get it. I've got no issue with the buildings, but the process to approve this is seriously f'ed up. And everyone should be concerned about this. It's not just here. Bedford West approvals are a good example. Clayton is given 15+ storey's on Kearney Lake Road while everyone else has to beg for a building permit for as-of-right developments. It is ad-hoc planning at its worst and only serves to decrease the quality of development.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's true about the DA, but I kind of doubt a charitable organization like the Housing Trust is trying to sneak a market-rate development through.

I agree, they probably aren't. But Council shouldn't be approving contractual DAs based on the good intentions of the other party. This is how they get in so much trouble and are always being sued. It's just bad business.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I agree, they probably aren't. But Council shouldn't be approving contractual DAs based on the good intentions of the other party. This is how they get in so much trouble and are always being sued. It's just bad business.

Seems like a very legitimate concern--I would rather see the opposition focus on amending the agreement to better reflect the development's intention, though, rather than simply holding up the development (which on balance I feel will be positive for the are). But I know that in addition to the concern over the DA there's a perception that the building is too large fronting Gottingen. I think it's getting close to a limit for the streetwall in a not-quite-downtown area like this, but it's not too large.

[Drybrain]

On a tangentially related note, the rather left wing, socially progressive Pembina Institute is fingering NIMBYism and community opposition as a barrier to creating mid-rise developments on Toronto's main streets, exacerbating that city's affordable housing crunch. They point out the role of market-rate multi-unit developments in preserving urban affordability and preventing a city where you have pockets of high-rises filled mostly with young singles, and vast and mostly unchanging districts of extremely expensive single-family houses, occupied by middle-aged and older people, or the rich. Those two housing types pretty much sum up central Toronto, and are creating an urban environment in which young families have a brutally hard time living in the city's core. Market-rate mid-rises are identified as part of the solution.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

On a tangentially related note, the rather left wing, socially progressive Pembina Institute is fingering NIMBYism and community opposition as a barrier to creating mid-rise developments on Toronto's main streets, exacerbating that city's affordable housing crunch. They point out the role of market-rate multi-unit developments in preserving urban affordability and preventing a city where you have pockets of high-rises filled mostly with young singles, and vast and mostly unchanging districts of extremely expensive single-family houses, occupied by middle-aged and older people, or the rich. Those two housing types pretty much sum up central Toronto, and are creating an urban environment in which young families have a brutally hard time living in the city's core. Market-rate mid-rises are identified as part of the solution.

Am I 100% in support of more family-focused midrise urban development. Something beyond density killing single-units and the sprawlburb model. Something to attract families to core areas; to get them to stop thinking that suburbs is the only way to raise a family.

NIMBYism is only going to get stronger, unfortunately, now as wealthy Boomers age and fight to hold onto their property, wealth, and the status quo.

[Keith P.]

Tenants in the Westwood-owned properties on SGR and Doyle St - the BMO, Tom's Little Havana, Rogue's Roost, and the former Second Cup among others - have been given notice to quit and are preparing to relocate by October 1. Presumably he is ready to begin doing something with the block, though no new renderings have appeared. I can imagine this will become a huge battle if the chooses to not preserve the existing BMO facade in some way.

[ILoveHalifax]

With any luck a dozer will go in some weekend before anybody knows what's happening

[Drybrain]

Totally attractive, functional, unique, well-scaled city block that has never had any problem finding tenants or contributing positively to the neighbourhood, and whose imposing, unmistakable massing has beautifully defined its immediate surroundings for decades.

Hey, let's tear it all down and throw up another pile of generically tacky, prefab-looking shit by Westwood Group.

There aren't enough jeers in the world to lob in Danny Chedrawe's general direction.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Its a shame.

If only there were are group with a mandate to protect the existing heritage of Halifax...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Totally attractive, functional, unique, well-scaled city block that has never had any problem finding tenants or contributing positively to the neighbourhood, and whose imposing, unmistakable massing has beautifully defined its immediate surroundings for decades.

Mismashed, cut-up, space-inefficient, rat-infested, maintenance-heavy, economically subpar city block that has festered in mediocrity for decades. Let's save it forever and never change a thing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There aren't enough jeers in the world to lob in Danny Chedrawe's general direction.

Is it really his fault if something unappealing is built? He is following the rules that the city has created and is responding to the market, building developments that people will rent and buy. It doesn't make much sense to me to vilify developers who follow the rules, or to rely substantially on their largesse or sense of taste to make sure that the city's heritage is well-protected.

I have a feeling that if there were better rules and better communication between heritage advocates and developers, there would be a much better outcome. I doubt Danny Chedrawe is hostile to the idea of building something with wider appeal that garners goodwill in the community.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Mismashed, cut-up, space-inefficient, rat-infested, maintenance-heavy, economically subpar city block that has festered in mediocrity for decades. Let's save it forever and never change a thing.

The block had houses almost nothing but successful businesses, but, whatever you want to think.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The block had houses almost nothing but successful businesses, but, whatever you want to think.

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Is it really his fault if something unappealing is built? He is following the rules that the city has created and is responding to the market, building developments that people will rent and buy. It doesn't make much sense to me to vilify developers who follow the rules, or to rely substantially on their largesse or sense of taste to make sure that the city's heritage is well-protected.

I have a feeling that if there were better rules and better communication between heritage advocates and developers, there would be a much better outcome. I doubt Danny Chedrawe is hostile to the idea of building something with wider appeal that garners goodwill in the community.

I don't think he's hostile to it either; and I've even agreed with his comments in the media that Halifax needs more mid-rise and fewer megaprojects. I think his vision for how to build up the city is largely good.

Unfortunately, his developments are not attractive, and taking the dozers to a block like this is a major back-track from the general trends in development locally and nationwide.

It comes down to a sense of taste, as you say, and I guess Danny and I aren't on the same page. Hence my response.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

TD moved one block and has the same landlord.
BMO will do the same.
The Fireside has not been in constant turmoil a longtime owner died of cancer and a new partner entered the business.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, Second Cup shut down, perhaps due to competition from the HRM-subsidized cafe in the glass box across the street. The bar/pool hall above Rogues has been shut down for years. TD Bank left. The eateries on the corner of Brunswick have been in constant turmoil since Thackerays shut down. Success? Really? I'd hate to see failures.

I agree with Colin's response above, plus in the broader scope restaurants come and go all the time. It is a risky business to be in as they can fall in and out of popularity at a whim. This is something that happens in all parts of the city (and abroad) and thus I don't think it's a valid argument to try to say that this location is "bad" because some restaurants/coffee shops, etc have closed (and typically reopened with a new owner/direction).

FWIW, remember that a Starbucks also opened up just across the street, which I'm sure contributed to the demise of this Second Cup location. The Nestle shop on the opposite corner, in a nice new shiny building also just shut down. So I guess by that evidence, new buildings on busy corners are not good candidates for food establishments but repurposed buildings like the Starbucks in the old bank are ideal...

IMHO, this building is a prime candidate for a repurposing, or in worst case, a façading. I think this building, with a good exterior cleaning and upgraded facilities on the inside (or even with a tower protruding from the center of it), would continue to be a great cornerstone for this intersection and would offer great contrast with the ultramodern library building (oops... I said the "L" word... ).

Actually, in looking at the building on Google Maps, a vast improvement in the building's appearance would occur if the old Second Cup add-on was removed and if the BMO blue was changed to another more complimentary colour (along with a good pressure-washing of the building itself).



https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643284,-6...gImcN6cZQA!2e0!5s20140801T000000!6m1!1e1