General Updates and News - Page 428

counterfactual · #**8541** Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 6:36 AM**

I like it too, but there are counterveiling concerns too: do underwater lights disturb the natural ecosystem at all? There is some evidence of this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/artificial-light-may-alter-underwater-ecosystems

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light-pollution-is-messing-ocean-ecosystems-180955142/

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/49787/...as-pollutants-harmful-to-marine-life.htm

Dmajackson · #**8542** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 5:17 PM**

Keith P. · #**8543** Posted **Jul 28, 2017, 11:48 PM**

But the Centre Plan has not been approved. How can proposals be assessed against rules that are not in effect?

yal · #**8544** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 5:21 PM**

Does anyone know anything about the last project?

21240 | SOUTH & SOUTH PARK | NO |

Phalanx · #**8545** Posted **Jul 29, 2017, 10:31 PM**

I'm a little disappointed that several of the Quinpool developments seem to have fallen through. I understand the decision in terms of the current context, but I think that when looked at as a whole most of the proposals could have worked (IE if all of these developments had been given the thumbs up and gone ahead together, then overall context of being much taller than their neigbhours isn't mitigated somewhat).

Hopefully they'll come back with a couple of stories chopped off, because I think that Quinpool is a prime candidate for renewal and densification.

IanWatson · #**8546** Posted **Jul 31, 2017, 11:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But the Centre Plan has not been approved. How can proposals be assessed against rules that are not in effect?

All of these applications are requests to amend the Municipal Planning Strategy. Since the Planning Strategy is the rules, amendments to it don't actually have any "rules" to assess. Basically a council can amend a Planning Strategy using whatever guiding principles they want, and in this case they've said that the Centre Plan document is going to be their guidebook.

IanWatson · #**8547** Posted **Jul 31, 2017, 11:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Hopefully they'll come back with a couple of stories chopped off, because I think that Quinpool is a prime candidate for renewal and densification.

Centre Plan has Quinpool as a "Centre", so it is indeed targeted for renewal and densification. It's just that Centre Plan has it being a little more orderly, with the height at the Robie end, and gradually sloping down towards the west end.

So yes, these proposals will probably be able to come back with some modifications and easily go through the Centre Plan rules once they're adopted.

Keith P. · #**8548** Posted **Jul 31, 2017, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Hopefully they'll come back with a couple of stories chopped off, because I think that Quinpool is a prime candidate for renewal and densification.

Yes, the CP will allow a dizzying 6 or 7 floors on Quinpool.

worldlyhaligonian · #**8549** Posted **Jul 31, 2017, 10:44 PM**

Wow, some of those proposed heights seem fine for the areas (e.g. Quinpool at the rotary).

What is the actual basis for the height limits and is it possible for them to increase in the future? Looks like this plan is just going to contribute to further urban sprawl.

counterfactual · #**8550** Posted **Aug 1, 2017, 12:27 PM**

IMHO, the Center Plan is a total disaster; a complete and utter NIMBY document that will kill great proposals all over the city, but particularly around Quinpool.

Incredible disappointment. I hope they're forced to back to the drawing board, just like the RP+5 plan was a joke and City Planners forced to fix.

Phalanx · #**8551** Posted **Aug 1, 2017, 3:03 PM**

I'm also fine with the heights as proposed, but I'm not sure it's a winnable battle with the plan as it is. Like I said, looked at individually a lot of these would stand out as being very high when compared to their neigbhours, but viewed together they're okay, and it would make it easier for the rest of the street to 'grow up' with time.

All that said, there's not much that can be done for Pepperell in the near future. I suspect that was the main sticking point, even with most/all of these proposals stepping down toward Pepperell, it would have been a sharp transition from one block to the next.

counterfactual · #**8552** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 8:36 AM**

And why is Planning Staff acting/pretending that the Centre Plan is law / enacted policy? Rejecting new proposals because it's inconsistent with a plan that has no legitimacy.

Pathetic 6 floor height limit on a bunch of Quinpool zoned proposals.

kph06 · #**8553** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 11:24 AM**

Here is a link with updated information on these proposals:

Applications for site-specific SMPS amendments in the Regional Centre

IanWatson · #**8554** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 11:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterfactual

And why is Planning Staff acting/pretending that the Centre Plan is law / enacted policy? Rejecting new proposals because it's inconsistent with a plan that has no legitimacy.

Because these proposals are PLAN amendments. They are amendments to create new policy, but HRM is already creating new policy: Centre Plan. I literally said this six posts up.

Keith P. · #**8555** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 12:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Because these proposals are PLAN amendments. They are amendments to create new policy, but HRM is already creating new policy: Centre Plan. I literally said this six posts up.

These are site-specific amendments which is how development approval in Halifax has been done for years in the absence of actual zoning that would allow more than a 2-storey building in most areas. The Centre Plan was supposed to eliminate this but has not been passed because it has many flaws and no consensus has been reached on height limits or if they should exist in it at all. Yet we are rejecting developments worth many millions of dollars in tax revenue because of a policy that has not been accepted by Council. This is a clear case of the inmate planners running the asylum.

IanWatson · #**8556** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

These are site-specific amendments which is how development approval in Halifax has been done for years in the absence of actual zoning that would allow more than a 2-storey building in most areas. The Centre Plan was supposed to eliminate this but has not been passed because it has many flaws and no consensus has been reached on height limits or if they should exist in it at all. Yet we are rejecting developments worth many millions of dollars in tax revenue because of a policy that has not been accepted by Council. This is a clear case of the inmate planners running the asylum.

Site specific or not, they are plan amendments, so there is no policy to guide whether they are appropriate or not. Instead, planners and Council evaluate plan amendments based on public consultation and an analysis of the effects of the amendments (Are they appropriate? Do they make good planning sense?).

HRM has just done that consultation and analysis in the form of the Centre Plan draft. Staff is saying "There is no need to repeat this work, it has been done, and it has been done in a more comprehensive manner than could ever be done for a one-off application."

Keith P. · #**8557** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson

HRM has just done that consultation and analysis in the form of the Centre Plan draft. Staff is saying "There is no need to repeat this work, it has been done, and it has been done in a more comprehensive manner than could ever be done for a one-off application."

Comprehensive as in covering a large swath of the peninsula, but less so when it comes to each individual site. This is the foolhardy part of municipal planning, trying to apply very specific rules to all sites in a given area in a broad-brush manner, in the absence of understanding market conditions or the ability and willingness of developers to invest money. These projects have passed that last test already. It only makes sense to do an analysis of each on their own merits.

Dmajackson · #**8558** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 5:02 PM**

IanWatson · #**8559** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Comprehensive as in covering a large swath of the peninsula, but less so when it comes to each individual site. This is the foolhardy part of municipal planning, trying to apply very specific rules to all sites in a given area in a broad-brush manner, in the absence of understanding market conditions or the ability and willingness of developers to invest money. These projects have passed that last test already. It only makes sense to do an analysis of each on their own merits.

No, not just comprehensive in area. Comprehensive in analysis too. Things like servicing capacity, total market demand, transit access, and transportation capacity. These are things that never get done on a site-specific basis. So while I wouldn't call any of these proposals bad when looked at in isolation, they actually have effects beyond the site. Sure, a 10 story building might work just as well as a 6 story building on a site, but it sucks up 4 extra storeys of sewer capacity and market demand that don't get to be put somewhere else. That's not planning, that's piecemeal.

someone123 · #**8560** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 6:12 PM**

Questions of planning aside, I'd say that the nicest and most interesting proposals survived anyway. I hope Robie and Pepperell gets built because that site is so ugly and has sat empty for about 2 decades. In general, more major development is going to have to happen outside of the traditional boundaries of downtown, because it is filling up with new construction and most of what's left is historic buildings. The Spring Garden Road area is close to being completely built out; it was half parking lots 20 years ago. It's getting more and more important for the city to increase heritage protections downtown to save the remaining buildings while creating an alternate path for development to follow as the city grows. Cogswell could be a part of that but that land isn't available yet, and many of the remaining surface lots downtown are publicly-owned.

I also think downtown Dartmouth has enormous potential. It's in a good location, it has lots of amenities, and it has lots of opportunity sites.