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

halifaxboyns · #**181** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 10:32 PM**

Gloria's comments didn't make sense to me. I was following the blog here and there, so when I can watch the video (once posted) I will. But it seemed really strange, her comment?

Speaking of being lectured...the latest piece of fiction from the Save the whatever force.

Dmajackson · #**182** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 3:43 PM**

Gloria McCluskey may just be losing her marbles. The CH has the quote and while I get she is not happy about the Seagate development she shouldn't take it out on another district;

Quote:

Meanwhile, Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dartmouth Centre) said she would support the peninsula development because of a past planning blunder in Dartmouth.

“A couple of years ago, this same planning department, in my district, put in three buildings,” she told council. “There was no thought of compatibility, there was no test of sensitivity, there was no thought of the effect on the community.

“If I sat here today and said this is wrong, how would the people of Dartmouth feel … so that’s the reason (for supporting the development).”

The Chronicle Herald - "Halifax Council Approves Controversial South-End Highrise" (January 14th, 2015)

Drybrain · #**183** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 4:51 PM**

Snippy urban/suburban/rural bickering, without consideration of what's best for the city as a whole, is bad enough. But a councillor who actually votes to inflict a bad project (or what she perceives to be a bad project) on a different neighbourhood, in retaliation for bad projects in her neighbourhood? That's insane.

A city councillor whose concerns and priorities are so comically parochial, and don't even extend beyond their district, doesn't deserve to be a councillor at all.

JET · #**184** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 6:18 PM**

"A city councillor whose concerns and priorities are so comically parochial, and don't even extend beyond their district, doesn't deserve to be a councillor at all. "

And if she runs again, do you want to put a wager on the outcome?

visualman57 · #**185** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

"A city councillor whose concerns and priorities are so comically parochial, and don't even extend beyond their district, doesn't deserve to be a councillor at all. "

And if she runs again, do you want to put a wager on the outcome?

Of course she would win again. Halifax has the market cornered on comical parochialism, except it's not so comical... it's just sad, and self defeating. And before anyone else comments, it's just as common in other communities. We have simply managed to take it to a higher level of idiocy.

Keith P. · #**186** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 7:29 PM**

It doesn't excuse it, but I have noticed that as Gloria has aged, these kind of blunt, unfiltered comments come out of her more often. She was never particularly politically-correct anyway, so now it has just become worse. I have very mixed feelings on her. The opposition to the development on Prince Albert Road a few years ago, and scuttling Brightwood's plans to relocate a few years before that, was simply wrong. But she asks good questions, doesn't usually suffer fools and charlatans, and doesn't fall into the trend-of-the-day buzzword thinking that ones like MasonWatts do. This was a poorly-worded thing to say, but if I had to guess I would translate it into "I don't believe these planners are being consistent".

JET · #**187** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It doesn't excuse it, but I have noticed that as Gloria has aged, these kind of blunt, unfiltered comments come out of her more often. She was never particularly politically-correct anyway, so now it has just become worse. I have very mixed feelings on her. The opposition to the development on Prince Albert Road a few years ago, and scuttling Brightwood's plans to relocate a few years before that, was simply wrong. But she asks good questions, doesn't usually suffer fools and charlatans, and doesn't fall into the trend-of-the-day buzzword thinking that ones like MasonWatts do. This was a poorly-worded thing to say, but if I had to guess I would translate it into "I don't believe these planners are being consistent".

Keith, have you been into the milk of human kindness? I'm all confused

Keith P. · #**188** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

Keith, have you been into the milk of human kindness? I'm all confused

Compared to MasonWatts, she is a ray of sunshine.

Colin May · #**189** Posted **Jan 15, 2015, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Snippy urban/suburban/rural bickering, without consideration of what's best for the city as a whole, is bad enough. But a councillor who actually votes to inflict a bad project (or what she perceives to be a bad project) on a different neighbourhood, in retaliation for bad projects in her neighbourhood? That's insane.

A city councillor whose concerns and priorities are so comically parochial, and don't even extend beyond their district, doesn't deserve to be a councillor at all.

The Seagate project was approved and several months later the developer put his land up for sale and went to Toronto ' to pursue other opportunities'.
Gloria gave the "I got a s**t project and Halifax can have a s**t project " speech. Small minded.
In other news, near the end of the discussion Adams pointed out a mistake in the documents that were crucial to the public hearing. The square footage in the staff report was inaccurate so they altered the text at the last minute.
And in other news, the public hearing last night into the deregistration of part of the heritage property at 99 Ochterloney was a repeat of the public hearing of November 18 2014.
I emailed the clerks office on tuesday afternoon asking why the item was on the agenda again when the deregistration was approved by Regional Council on November 18, 2014 and they replied :
" This item is on the agenda for a public hearing tonight at 6:00pm, as sufficient notice was not given for the previous public hearing so there is a requirement to re-do the public hearing on this item. "
Planning staff have consistently cocked up the project by not following the rules.
I thought of going over and reminding them of how staff incompetentcy has delayed the project, but decided not to waste my time.

eastcoastal · #**190** Posted **Jan 15, 2015, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

... This was a poorly-worded thing to say, but if I had to guess I would translate it into "I don't believe these planners are being consistent".

I think that's what she meant as well... but she would have added: ", and I'm angry about it so I'm going to support a project I think is inappropriate."

I don't think that's the kind of person who should be making decisions on behalf of us all - regardless of her age.

counterfactual · #**191** Posted **Jan 16, 2015, 2:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Snippy urban/suburban/rural bickering, without consideration of what's best for the city as a whole, is bad enough. But a councillor who actually votes to inflict a bad project (or what she perceives to be a bad project) on a different neighbourhood, in retaliation for bad projects in her neighbourhood? That's insane.

A city councillor whose concerns and priorities are so comically parochial, and don't even extend beyond their district, doesn't deserve to be a councillor at all.

McCluskey is just terrible. A useless Councillor without an ounce of vision or leadership, and who has done nothing innovative, helpful, creative, or even commonsensical, for a long, long, time.

This one takes the cake, truly. Let me support this development because, well, there was a development we didn't like once in Dartmouth.

What a maroon.

counterfactual · #**192** Posted **Jan 16, 2015, 2:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by visualman57

Of course she would win again. Halifax has the market cornered on comical parochialism, except it's not so comical... it's just sad, and self defeating. And before anyone else comments, it's just as common in other communities. We have simply managed to take it to a higher level of idiocy.

Ha, ha. "comical parochialism". That certainly describes McCloskey to a "T".

Dmajackson · #**193** Posted **Aug 28, 2015, 5:30 PM**

There is a new proposal for this site. The heights are the same but they have changed the appearance of the building.

A Public Information Meeting will be held on September 16th, 2015 at the St. Mary's Boat Club (1641 Fairfield Road).

Case 19987 Details Page

fenwick16 · #**194** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 4:20 AM**

There are updated renderings and floor plans for this proposal: (as of December, 2015). I think it looks good and seems to be a reasonable size for the neighbourhood, stepping down in height from the adjacent buildings to the north.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/dec24renderings.pdf

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/applications/documents/dec24plansandelevations.pdf

someone123 · #**195** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 5:36 AM**

Seems like an improvement over the original. I wonder if people will appreciate the changes or if the opposition is just BANANA sentiment?

Keith P. · #**196** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Seems like an improvement over the original. I wonder if people will appreciate the changes or if the opposition is just BANANA sentiment?

They'll probably want them to saw off the penthouse, because "It's TOO TALL!!".

OldDartmouthMark · #**197** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 9:43 PM**

Page 4 illustrates the step down with existing structures quite well.

Hopefully this one goes through. It's been a long haul for everyone involved.

TheNovaScotian · #**198** Posted **Jan 6, 2016, 2:07 AM**

Another ugly design thanks to height restrictions that shouldn't exist. Isn't anyone tired of lackluster efforts to design attractive buildings in this city? There are some stand outs but this one isn't given the chance to. I live nearby and the Gorsebrook field should be lined with taller elegant buildings not squat ugly compromises with the save the _____ team.
Even while doing the survey for St. Pats, I came to think that people are more engaged in civic matters but actually its just that the ones who participate can participate more effectively and can get their aversion to change out there more.
Mr. Mason, this buildings ugly design will be a testament to the battles you've decided to be of importance during your tenure as councillor.

Hali87 · #**199** Posted **Jan 6, 2016, 2:49 AM**

I like it

It's not a landmark by any stretch of the imagination but there's certainly nothing wrong with it. I like it better than the original proposal.

OldDartmouthMark · #**200** Posted **Jan 6, 2016, 2:01 PM**

I don't really see anything wrong with it. I'm not really in that neighborhood as much as I used to be these days, but it occurs to me that the location doesn't really need a landmark building, as it is a little bit away from any main areas. The building is a relatively unobtrusive, fairly clean design, IMHO, and will not look out of place in the neighborhood.

Looking on Bing birdseye view, I was struck by the thought that this building has garnered way too much attention and taken way too much of everybody's time as it is. I understand the principles of fighting NIMBYism, but in reality it's just another apartment building in a residential area that most people will never see. It will provide living quarters for students mostly, I imagine given its locale, but really is it worth all the attention that it has been given?

Bing birdseye view:
http://binged.it/1Z8oTKV