Development Rumours

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Looks like Waye is trying to engage the neighbourhood and developers (not mutually exclusive categories) to figure out how the area can accommodate the substantial inevitable development that will occur in future, without running roughshod over the valuable architectural heritage that already exists. That sounds like planning to me, not "anti-development".

Part of what's going on here is that he's in a tough spot because there have been so many years of bad, adversarial planning and poor communication between the city, developers, and the public.

I hope the discussion will continue to subtly move away from an obsession over minimizing height and density. I have a feeling a lot of people in Halifax, including traditional NIMBYs, would prefer narrow glass towers to squat concrete boxes. Everybody needs to accept that some increase in density is necessary for the city to work well into the future and that there are trade-offs in terms of how the added density should be handled.

On the other side of things the city needs to figure out a way to direct new development onto marginal land and discourage the demolition of good buildings. Reusing old buildings is one of the easiest ways to make a city more ecologically friendly and to preserve its character.

[Keith P.]

I found it ironic he subtly took shots at buildings being approved under HRMxD just because a few people don't like or want them, while in his next breath touting the Centre Plan as a panacea for development agreements. I am coming to believe the Centre Plan is an outright folly and a massive waste of resources because it is too grand, covers too large an area, and cannot possibly get into the kind of granular detail required to determine what kind of building should be allowed on every lot in the area 20 years from now. I mean, come on. That is absurd on the face of it.

[portapetey]

^^^

PlanDoggle™

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by musicman

Waye's update number 39 of the center plan.

Just a few anti-development leaning comments in this one....


http://wayemason.ca/…/update-39-centre-plan-development-in…/

"Content not found".

Seems the link is dead now.

Anyone with a fresh link?

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

"Content not found".

Seems the link is dead now.

Anyone with a fresh link?

http://wayemason.ca/2016/03/01/update-39...e-district-and-lots-of-events-and-plans/

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If by "anti-development" you mean "not unequivocally in support of all development no matter what," then I guess...

Looks like Waye is trying to engage the neighbourhood and developers (not mutually exclusive categories) to figure out how the area can accommodate the substantial inevitable development that will occur in future, without running roughshod over the valuable architectural heritage that already exists. That sounds like planning to me, not "anti-development".

Well, I read it and it seems like the MPS part is clear attempt to make amendments unallowable in certain circumstances. This is a bit much... considering the appeal processes that exist.

I would wager it will ultimately lead to more "Clayton Park specials" and poor faux heritage in places where a slightly different (by different I mean usually taller) development is proposed.

Aside from the Young Ave bit, it seems like little is in there to protect existing structures, but moreso to prevent new ones. That is, by definition, anti-development.

[musicman]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Well, I read it and it seems like the MPS part is clear attempt to make amendments unallowable in certain circumstances. This is a bit much... considering the appeal processes that exist.

I would wager it will ultimately lead to more "Clayton Park specials" and poor faux heritage in places where a slightly different (by different I mean usually taller) development is proposed.

Aside from the Young Ave bit, it seems like little is in there to protect existing structures, but moreso to prevent new ones. That is, by definition, anti-development.

This is exactly how i read Waye's comments i could just not put it into words.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by musicman

This is exactly how i read Waye's comments i could just not put it into words.

Thanks! I think the problem is with how lack of understanding by some of what the rules (which can be amended) are.

Sure, a resident can be suddenly "shocked" by a proposal that fits the requirements of HRMxDesign or an amendment to the rules, but ignorance is not a justification for things.

HRMxDesign was passed (with elements of anti-development written into it) and in typical NIMBY fashion, those concessions aren't even enough.

All of this has led to the sprawling, non-heritage preservation we see. If old buildings were not allowed to be torn down and new buildings had to address the street properly and be of a good design (instead of the anti-height obsession by some), Halifax would be on a better trajectory than it already is.

[musicman]

I spend alot of evening hours in that neighbourhood at a couple of bars just off spring garden and it blows my mind some of the conversation that i've gotten into over the last 2 years... These people truely would rather a short squat faux victorian piece of s**t than a beautiful tall slender structure. It drives me off the deep end every single time. I just don't get it...

[Drybrain]

There's really nothing in Waye's post that suggest he wants to see squat faux-Victorians instead of contemporary architecture. The only bit that could be read that way is where he mentioned development that preserves the character of the area, but I take that to mean preservation of existing built heritage.

Anyway.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There's really nothing in Waye's post that suggest he wants to see squat faux-Victorians instead of contemporary architecture. The only bit that could be read that way is where he mentioned development that preserves the character of the area, but I take that to mean preservation of existing built heritage.

Anyway.

Nothing in this post but the man does have a history and one cannot discount that.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There's really nothing in Waye's post that suggest he wants to see squat faux-Victorians instead of contemporary architecture. The only bit that could be read that way is where he mentioned development that preserves the character of the area, but I take that to mean preservation of existing built heritage.

There we go with that "heritage" word again. It does not mean that anything is "heritage" just because it's old.

The issue is that I interpret the item as pandering to those who would rather keep an unremarkable 4-storey run-down POS building instead of replacing it with a modern building - doesn't matter if it too is 4 floors or a slim 10-floor building with the same number of units. They just don't want anything to change.

That is anti-development.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There we go with that "heritage" word again. It does not mean that anything is "heritage" just because it's old.

The issue is that I interpret the item as pandering to those who would rather keep an unremarkable 4-storey run-down POS building instead of replacing it with a modern building - doesn't matter if it too is 4 floors or a slim 10-floor building with the same number of units. They just don't want anything to change.

Or, maybe others have different opinionss than yours over what century-plus old buildings should be considered worth saving.

That is anti-development.

Wouldn't be a KP post without the usual dramatic closing statement.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Or, maybe others have different opinionss than yours over what century-plus old buildings should be considered worth saving.

Of course, most people are wrong after all.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course, most people are wrong after all.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There we go with that "heritage" word again. It does not mean that anything is "heritage" just because it's old.

The issue is that I interpret the item as pandering to those who would rather keep an unremarkable 4-storey run-down POS building instead of replacing it with a modern building - doesn't matter if it too is 4 floors or a slim 10-floor building with the same number of units. They just don't want anything to change.

That is anti-development.

Built heritage does mean anything that is built that is old (and not really old, eg 1800's and before, but just oldish; 1930's-1970's). http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/5_modern_heritage-patrimoine_moderne.aspx
If what you meant was just because something is considered old(ish), does not then necessarily make it a heritage (registered) property; then that would be a correct statement. Not that you were incorrect of course, just imprecise.

[someone123]

The publication that shall not be named reported on some developments planned for Gottingen Street tonight. The Housing Trust of NS sites on the east side of the street are still pending approval, but construction is going to start soon on the west side of the street across from the library.

The developer just bought the graffiti-covered building on the corner of Cunard street and is planning to develop the whole area in two phases. The first phase will be a 100 unit, 5 storey building on the empty lot, and then the corner building will be demolished and a second new building will be built there.

One interesting detail is that the developer is planning for retail spaces and is going to try to get local tenants rather than chains. Overall that sounds positive along with the fact that the lot will be subdivided so there won't be one enormous building.

These developments plus the Housing Trust developments will have around 440 units in them, so they could bring around 1,000 new residents to the street.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by someone123

The publication that shall not be named reported on some developments planned for Gottingen Street tonight. The Housing Trust of NS sites on the east side of the street are still pending approval, but construction is going to start soon on the west side of the street across from the library.

The developer just bought the graffiti-covered building on the corner of Cunard street and is planning to develop the whole area in two phases. The first phase will be a 100 unit, 5 storey building on the empty lot, and then the corner building will be demolished and a second new building will be built there.

One interesting detail is that the developer is planning for retail spaces and is going to try to get local tenants rather than chains. Overall that sounds positive along with the fact that the lot will be subdivided so there won't be one enormous building.

These developments plus the Housing Trust developments will have around 440 units in them, so they could bring around 1,000 new residents to the street.

]

UGH 5 stories is too short for that space. what a waste.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by hokus83

]

UGH 5 stories is too short for that space. what a waste.

Honestly it's fine, I think. A continuous five-storey streetwall is ideal for this kind of block-spanning infill. Not everything can or should be a tower.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

The publication that shall not be named reported on some developments planned for Gottingen Street tonight. ... construction is going to start soon on the west side of the street across from the library... The developer just bought the graffiti-covered building on the corner of Cunard street and is planning to develop the whole area in two phases.

I really like that graffiti-bomb and often think how nice it would be if it were cleaned up and used for a restaurant or bar. I suspect it's planned to be demolished though, which I think is a shame.