General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The thing is it could end up the same as the York--has their been any progress on getting that re-assembled? Seems to be in indefinite storage.

That would be my concern. Plus, so much character of the building would be lost, IMHO.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Precisely my thinking when I originally posted it. I made a mistake saying it was 1 block instead of 3 without checking it on a map, but in actuality anytime I've done that very walk myself it didn't seem very far... never bothered counting the blocks... hence my saying one block.

Regardless... how many people who work in the downtown core get to park right outside their place of work? Why should it be any better for politicians, who, in fact, are supposed to be public servants - i.e. have the best interest of the public as their raison d'être?

I stand by my original statement that they should park at Metro Park and let the grounds go back to being landscaped.

Completely agree.

Some journalist should write a story on this, get some public attention. I hated Councillors parking in Grand Parade. So, I also loathe MLAs (who I think are overall, more useless than even our hapless Councillors) getting a private parking lot outside their office.

The Nova Scotia Government has always been the worst thing for Halifax. Elected by the rural vote, Provincial Governments have always crapped on Halifax and not given a care about fixing / investing in downtown. This is just another example of that. Things are changing now, however, because Halifax is growing in population while rural areas are dwindling. Soon, parties will be able to form government via votes from Halifax and surrounding alone.

End this parking lot travesty. Send the MLAs to Metropark.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Completely agree.

Some journalist should write a story on this, get some public attention. I hated Councillors parking in Grand Parade. So, I also loathe MLAs (who I think are overall, more useless than even our hapless Councillors) getting a private parking lot outside their office.

The Nova Scotia Government has always been the worst thing for Halifax. Elected by the rural vote, Provincial Governments have always crapped on Halifax and not given a care about fixing / investing in downtown. This is just another example of that. Things are changing now, however, because Halifax is growing in population while rural areas are dwindling. Soon, parties will be able to form government via votes from Halifax and surrounding alone.

End this parking lot travesty. Send the MLAs to Metropark.

They don't even need the metro park. The Lot bounded by Lower water, Sackville, The maple and The Ralston Bldg is owned by the province.

I suppose in this case, The fact that the minister responsible is from Halifax Probably helps. He will be less inclined to leave another hole out of spite.

[Keith P.]

Here are our two favorite anti-development, anti-tall building councillors, MasonWatts, speaking as to the evils of tall (above 8 storey) buildings, the fear they generate, and the evils of a 25-floor building on Robie St and the devastation it will cause to the surrounding area:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Shows/Maritimes/ID/2667882236/


The fact that these two can spout such nonsense without being challenged is quite indicative of the reasons why Halifax continues to be held back from being all it can be. Shameful.

[JET]

I only heard part of it this morning. Waye was talking about not having tall buildings that were like a cracker box, with sheer sides (eg Queen Square, with huge wind issues, ( my comment, not his)); he said that tall buildings with a set back were not such an issue, at least that's what I heard and had no probkem with.

[Drybrain]

I heard it as a pretty nuanced conversation too. Neither came off as a anti-development.

Waye said that it was necessary to protect single-family communities and ensure they remain the same in basic character--I disagree with that, but it's exactly what's enshrined in planning bylaw in basically every Canadian city, so I can't fault him for it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a municipal councillor in the country who'd take any other stance. I'd favour modest upzoning--like, developers being able to put in stacked townhouses as-of-right anywhere at all. As long as heritage regulations are in place to ensure we don't lose much in the way of our saltbox and Victorian vernacular, I think we could add a ridiculous amount of mid-rise density while maintaining leafy, small-scale streets.

Unfortunately, that's a revolutionary planning idea in Canada, which is part of the reason we have ridiculous housing prices.

Anyway, that's a digression. The tower discussion seemed pretty reasonable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I heard it as a pretty nuanced conversation too. Neither came off as a anti-development.

Anyway, that's a digression. The tower discussion seemed pretty reasonable.

None of what Watts said sounded particularly reasonable to me. But she has a history of being opposed to anything over 35 feet in height.

Really, is a narrow 25-floor tower on a low-rise podium on a 6-lane boulevard that is one of the busiest streets in town across from a gigantic green space really devastating to the area?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

None of what Watts said sounded particularly reasonable to me. But she has a history of being opposed to anything over 35 feet in height.

Really, is a narrow 25-floor tower on a low-rise podium on a 6-lane boulevard that is one of the busiest streets in town across from a gigantic green space really devastating to the area?

Oh, I agree. I think it's completely fine. If it were me I'd say "look, this is a city, this is a reasonable location for this, that's how it goes."

PBut bearing in mind she's definitely a fairly conservative (not politically, but in other ways) councillor, speaking to a fairly conservative, homeowner-oriented base. She was at least saying "we need to consider various factors," rather than "no way."

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Oh, I agree. I think it's completely fine. If it were me I'd say "look, this is a city, this is a reasonable location for this, that's how it goes."

PBut bearing in mind she's definitely a fairly conservative (not politically, but in other ways) councillor, speaking to a fairly conservative, homeowner-oriented base. She was at least saying "we need to consider various factors," rather than "no way."

Only one person from Parker Street spoke at the meeting, I expected more but after the meeting a person told me the abutting properties are not owner occupied.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

None of what Watts said sounded particularly reasonable to me. But she has a history of being opposed to anything over 35 feet in height.

Really, is a narrow 25-floor tower on a low-rise podium on a 6-lane boulevard that is one of the busiest streets in town across from a gigantic green space really devastating to the area?

I spent some time in New York's Central Park last year, and really liked the tall buildings that are around much of the park. As with Robie Street, they are a bit back from the perimeter of the park. I think this development with look much better than what is there now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

I spent some time in New York's Central Park last year, and really liked the tall buildings that are around much of the park. As with Robie Street, they are a bit back from the perimeter of the park. I think this development with look much better than what is there now.

It also makes sense to put higher density buildings around the edges of parks like this so that they are well-used and well-supported by the tax base. Quinpool Road needs more residents too. These lots on Robie are about as ideal for highrises as it gets. Hopefully these buildings will be approved.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

It also makes sense to put higher density buildings around the edges of parks like this so that they are well-used and well-supported by the tax base. Quinpool Road needs more residents too. These lots on Robie are about as ideal for highrises as it gets. Hopefully these buildings will be approved.

Oh ! Density....AAAAAARRGHH........looks like we have something in common with Toronto.
Except they are whinging about new and cheaper properties in their 'hood.

" I’m the one rating the new townhomes on their looks; the homeowners of Keewatin care only about money. To them, people who pay half a million are riff-raff whom they hope to keep out..." and " When you support mid-rises, you’re speaking up for a generation that wants to live inside one of the world’s most popular cities. NIMBYs are voting for death, when they can pass on much-hoped-for false profits to their children, who will by then be too old to care. "
Ouch ! or fall on the floor laughing. I'll wager the moaners vote NDP.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentar...y-of-the-density-creep-crew-mallick.html

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I heard it as a pretty nuanced conversation too. Neither came off as a anti-development.

Waye said that it was necessary to protect single-family communities and ensure they remain the same in basic character--I disagree with that, but it's exactly what's enshrined in planning bylaw in basically every Canadian city, so I can't fault him for it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a municipal councillor in the country who'd take any other stance. I'd favour modest upzoning--like, developers being able to put in stacked townhouses as-of-right anywhere at all. As long as heritage regulations are in place to ensure we don't lose much in the way of our saltbox and Victorian vernacular, I think we could add a ridiculous amount of mid-rise density while maintaining leafy, small-scale streets.

Unfortunately, that's a revolutionary planning idea in Canada, which is part of the reason we have ridiculous housing prices.

Anyway, that's a digression. The tower discussion seemed pretty reasonable.

Problem, is that this is not a single family community. It's nowhere near a single family unit or units. It would actually *create* more affordable residential for single families, who would be interested in living near a nice park.

Instead, its two politicians once again being mouthpieces for wealthy property owners located in other parts of the peninsula. No surprise there. But Mason and Watts may be in for a surprise next election, because Bev Miller only gets to vote once.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by JET

I spent some time in New York's Central Park last year, and really liked the tall buildings that are around much of the park. As with Robie Street, they are a bit back from the perimeter of the park. I think this development with look much better than what is there now.

I agree, and actually, for those worried about "shadow reports", it's actually nice to have a bit of shade cast onto a tree-less green space, for those wanting to use the park in summer, and avoid harmful sun rays.

[hokus83]

most of these homes probably 90 % of theme in this area are divided up for people to rent sections of, it's probably just the landlords kicking up a fuss out of fear them might lose tenants

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hokus83

most of these homes probably 90 % of theme in this area are divided up for people to rent sections of, it's probably just the landlords kicking up a fuss out of fear them might lose tenants

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good NIMBY protest over a building more than 35' high.

[macgregor]

Looks like excavation has started on the Cancer Society "Lodge that Gives"/Daffodil Place on South and Wellington.

[IanWatson]

A reminder that fighting density (even mid-rise density) isn't confined to Halifax:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/25/midtowners-battle-the-rise-of-the-midrise.html

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I agree, and actually, for those worried about "shadow reports", it's actually nice to have a bit of shade cast onto a tree-less green space, for those wanting to use the park in summer, and avoid harmful sun rays.

Keep in mind the really bad shadows are at 4pm in February about 1.5 hours before sunset. It's cold it's winter, people in the oval will be under the lights.

If you stop and think, the shadow isn't an issue

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Keep in mind the really bad shadows are at 4pm in February about 1.5 hours before sunset. It's cold it's winter, people in the oval will be under the lights.

If you stop and think, the shadow isn't an issue

And given that the Common is basically a treeless field with some baseball diamonds, I'm all for a bit of shade. But I'm aware I'm in the minority--most people enjoy squinting and sweating and soaking up UV for hours on end. I don't understand it.