General Updates and News

[counterfactual]

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.

And your answer is still plainly inadequate six posts later. CP shouldn't be treating the Plan as policy if it's not even passed, even if via site specific amendments.

Keith's answer's you aptly:

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.

HRM planning should examine each proposal on its own merits, not pretend that it has "consulted" on the appropriateness of each proposal by citing skewed consultations on CP (before the full draft was even released) that has not itself received enough public scrutiny nor is it passed. It has no basis in law or policy; it's a proposal and nothing else. They're just using CP as a pre-text to reject more proposals. I hope City Councillors see pass this BS and reject all of their recommendations.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

And your answer is still plainly inadequate six posts later. CP shouldn't be treating the Plan as policy if it's not even passed, even if via site specific amendments.

How can I put this another way. When you do plan amendments (whether site specific or community-wide), you are creating NEW policy. So HRM has to write and adopt NEW policy for each of these sites. But HRM already has NEW policy written and waiting to be adopted that would cover each of these sites: Centre Plan. To do a bunch of site-specific amendments, and then on top of that adopt Centre plan, is to go through the process twice. This is a) a waste of resources, that takes staff away from other things and delays other planning approvals, and b) bad planning.

As I said in my response to Keith, site-specific amendments are not good planning. Buildings have ripples in things beyond their site (traffic, servicing capacity, market demand, character of the area, etc. etc.); things that need to be considered comprehensively; things that don't get looked at on a site-specific basis.

[Ziobrop]

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.

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

they arnt. these don't fit the existing rules - so they are already exceptions, and could be killed outright now, under current rules.

Staff/council evaluated these proposals to see if they kinda work with the draft Center plan rules, and if they do, they will move forward, and likely get approved by Development agreement, and thus be exempt from Center plan rules.

The other projects arn't dead, they can still come back and re-submit.


FWIW, 6 stories will give quinpool a nice streetwall, without overwhelming the neighbors. I think once fully developed it will be much better then blocks of High rise.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

they arnt. these don't fit the existing rules - so they are already exceptions, and could be killed outright now, under current rules.

The objective of planning staff should not be to kill development proposals based on obsolete 1950s rules. This is the fundamental problem. In the absence of any approved policy that is appropriate to today (which is not the CP since it has not been approved by Council and may never be), they should be welcoming development proposals and trying to find ways to say yes, not saying no constantly.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The objective of planning staff should not be to kill development proposals based on obsolete 1950s rules. This is the fundamental problem. In the absence of any approved policy that is appropriate to today (which is not the CP since it has not been approved by Council and may never be), they should be welcoming development proposals and trying to find ways to say yes, not saying no constantly.

It has not been fully approved by council true, but it has been endorsed and seen by council who have given direction to continue with the process of turning it into policy. Given the overall context I think that is acceptable in this situation.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The objective of planning staff should not be to kill development proposals based on obsolete 1950s rules...

I don't think the "objective" of staff is to kill proposals based on 1950s rules. In fact, I think that the process by which they consider the proposals against current thinking in terms of urban planning and design is something quite different than evaluating against 1950s rules.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

... In the absence of any approved policy that is appropriate to today (which is not the CP since it has not been approved by Council and may never be), they should be welcoming development proposals and trying to find ways to say yes, not saying no constantly.

In the "absence of any approved policy that is appropriate to today," I think it is the role of planning staff to provide professional guidance.

I also don't think saying no to 8/22 is the same as "no constantly."

If we pretend for a moment that the Centre Plan has been incorporating current thinking from the world of planning and urban design, and we think that proposals should be good for the city (versus good for the developer.... but hopefully they're good for both), then it's probably fine they've evaluated them the way that they did.

Now... whether or not the Centre Plan actually DOES incorporate current thinking with respect to best practices in advancing good urban design is another discussion. I don't have an answer, but I know you don't believe so.

[Dmajackson]

I've created threads for a couple of the larger proposals given the go-ahead by Regional Council.

As for my two cents I think overall staff made the correct decisions regarding these proposals and Council made the correct decision by allowing the "Maybe" projects to proceed as well. The "No" projects were all incorrectly proportioned for their respective locations. The only projects I could support coming back would be the three along Quinpool Road. The two between Preston and Oxford should be scaled down slightly to be no taller or bigger than the Keep (U/C) at 8 floors. The other project down at Armdale should come back at up to 12 floors and be less bulky.

[Jonovision]

Dresden Rowe infill taking shape.

20170804_145342_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Keith P.]

Ah, the old CSS Insurance building is no more...

[Dmajackson]

2533 Agricola Street future home of Compass Distillery


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

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.

These are important points that tend to get glossed over while 'we' are demanding taller buildings and more of them.

Presumably the calculations have been done regarding service capacity and traffic studies have been done to consider increased strain on our roadways, so these are prime considerations that have to be taken into account before we just approve each individual project on its own merit, IMHO.

If we are getting near capacity on these things, then there would have to be a plan to deal with these situations or we are painting ourselves in a corner, so to speak. One would think that this is part of the regular planning process, which would lead me to believe that several potential scenarios have been considered, i.e. :
- replacing sewage services with larger/more pipes,
- increasing sewage treatment capacity if necessary,
- increasing water service size/capacity and perhaps incorporate an additional supply source for fresh water,
- increased/improved transit availability,
- improved traffic management
- etc. etc.

Large infrastructure improvements can be massively expensive, and would make me tend to believe that those in the position of making decisions have determined that Halifax isn't at the point in its growth that it could support such a large infrastructure investment, or doesn't need to have density concentrated into a few specific areas that would create an overcapacity situation when they have the option of spreading population density a little more evenly throughout the city. I can only guess, but this seems logical to me.

All in all, I don't see the centre plan as being the massive failure that some seem to feel it is, but like anything, it will likely need some tweaking before it becomes final, and then more as years pass and philosophies/requirements change.

[Keith P.]

The fundamental problem is that you have a 10 storey proposal ready to break ground once approved. A 6-storey "acceptable" proposal may not exist as it likely does not have a business case to make it profitable. So you are left with an empty lot. Assuming that other proposals will magically come along and be built according to the planner's vision of future nirvana is foolhardy.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

How can I put this another way. When you do plan amendments (whether site specific or community-wide), you are creating NEW policy. So HRM has to write and adopt NEW policy for each of these sites. But HRM already has NEW policy written and waiting to be adopted that would cover each of these sites: Centre Plan. To do a bunch of site-specific amendments, and then on top of that adopt Centre plan, is to go through the process twice. This is a) a waste of resources, that takes staff away from other things and delays other planning approvals, and b) bad planning.

As I said in my response to Keith, site-specific amendments are not good planning. Buildings have ripples in things beyond their site (traffic, servicing capacity, market demand, character of the area, etc. etc.); things that need to be considered comprehensively; things that don't get looked at on a site-specific basis.

And how can I make my point another way? It's obvious that these proposals are not allowed under existing zoning rules which are literally decades old and are nonsensical and totally inadequate for our City today. And thus, to proceed, there would need to be amendments.

And my point is that each proposal should be assessed on its merits to proceed-- as in allow the site-specific change-- rather than assessing it against a Centre Plan policy that isn't even legitimate law or policy now.

Site-specific amendments are not necessarily "new" policy. They are exceptions to exist policy, as in, exceptions to zoning rules that represent decades old zoning policy.

Perhaps you can develop a new policy to deal with site-specific amendments in a more uniform way--THAT would be actual policy--but this new uniform policy should be legitimized through some democratic debate/adoption by Council and not done simply by fiat by un-elected planning staff pretending that the few people-- mainly retired NIMBYs with too much time on their hands-- that show up at consultations grants that policy an imprimatur of legitimacy. The same goes for the Centre Plan. If you want to develop such a policy, or abide by new Centre Plan rules, fine. But again, the policy should be democratically debated and enacted first before knocking down proposals.

I support democratic policy formulation and enactment. Such hubris!

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

FWIW, 6 stories will give quinpool a nice streetwall, without overwhelming the neighbors. I think once fully developed it will be much better then blocks of High rise.

6 stories is better than what is allowed now, but it is far too short for an area that should be designated for high density development. It's an ideal zone for this, much like Spring Garden/Robie area.

I mean if we are doing to have taller buildings and greater density developments outside the HRMxD zone, where would be more appropriate than here?


-


For all the posters on here concerned with losing more heritage buildings downtown, we'd probably see fewer bulldozed in the heritage-laden HRMxD area if we allowed for greater density outside that zone in well equipped places-- with existing dense towers-- like Quinpool/Robie.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

And how can I make my point another way? It's obvious that these proposals are not allowed under existing zoning rules which are literally decades old and are nonsensical and totally inadequate for our City today. And thus, to proceed, there would need to be amendments.

Agreed.

And my point is that each proposal should be assessed on its merits to proceed-- as in allow the site-specific change--

No. That's exactly what shouldn't be done. The whole point of Centre Plan is to get away from this. Site-specific amendments don't look at the big picture. So you end up approving a building that's maybe reasonable when looked at just on that site, but ends up having negative effects beyond its site. A site-specific amendment will never look at things holistically. Yes, the proponent will do a sewage study that says "there is enough capacity in the sewer for this project", but they will never do a study to ask "how much of that capacity is needed for other development?", and it would be unreasonable to ask for such a study on a site-specific basis because it would need to be so comprehensive (and expensive).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

For all the posters on here concerned with losing more heritage buildings downtown, we'd probably see fewer bulldozed in the heritage-laden HRMxD area if we allowed for greater density outside that zone in well equipped places-- with existing dense towers-- like Quinpool/Robie.

That would be me, and one or two other skyscraper members...

It's a good point, but I'm not sure we can assume that relationship. Downtown is where the majority of the at-risk heritage buildings are located, and coincidentally it is the same area that would be considered prime for higher-end residential, i.e. highest profit margin for developers.

I don't think that most condo buyers would consider a condo on Quinpool, for example, to have equivalent desirability to one on Barrington, for example.

We could build up surrounding areas, if there is a market for it, but the point of my post (which was a reflection of the facts that Ian presented) was to say that there is much more involved than just approving height on its own merit.

I would like to see those areas built up even more, but again, it's just that "I would like to see it"; not "I have done the calculations and created a cost/benefit study and determined that it is viable to plan in this fashion".

IMHO, the heritage issue could be easily solved by some stronger rules/laws such as those in place in other cities, but there still doesn't seem to be much political will to do it. Haligonians have long disregarded its own history, for some reason, and it still seems to be reflected in the lack of desire to preserve what is left of our built history.

So, I see centre plan height limits and protection of heritage properties as separate issues that may be related, but one doesn't guarantee a positive effect on the other.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The fundamental problem is that you have a 10 storey proposal ready to break ground once approved. A 6-storey "acceptable" proposal may not exist as it likely does not have a business case to make it profitable. So you are left with an empty lot. Assuming that other proposals will magically come along and be built according to the planner's vision of future nirvana is foolhardy.

Honestly, I find it very doubtful that land prices anywhere in Halifax are such that a six-storey building can't be profitable. Structures of that scale are still being built in central parts of Toronto, Brooklyn, the main thoroughfares in Vancouver outside of the immediate downtown.

I'm not against a ten-storey buildings here, but the argument that such a height is necessary for a profitable development ring really false.

As for preserving heritage by permitting more height elsewhere: Sure, maybe. But market incentives to preserve heritage don't seem to be working as well here as in some other places. We need staightforward rules, including rules that developers might not like, and we need to enforce them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Honestly, I find it very doubtful that land prices anywhere in Halifax are such that a six-storey building can't be profitable. Structures of that scale are still being built in central parts of Toronto, Brooklyn, the main thoroughfares in Vancouver outside of the immediate downtown.

This is true but the units in these boutique developments in expensive cities are often millions of dollars. Land costs alone are, say, $10M divided by 15 or 20 units. It is impossible for market-rate developments like this to be affordable. Vancouver is in the middle of a horrible, extremely unfair affordability crisis, and restrictive zoning has played a huge role in that. The local media give us "balanced" reports about public consultation where poor elderly Kitsilano folks worried about sunshine and traffic argue against rich developers. But these poor old folks are actually extremely privileged accidental multi-millionaires and they are fighting to prevent the creation of affordable housing.

Property owners will always tend to argue for restrictive zoning, because it drives up the value of their assets. Meanwhile working class poorer and younger people are harmed by policies and they don't have much of a voice in municipal politics. The people who couldn't move to a city because it became too expensive have no voice.

If planners are going to advocate for constraints on developers it would be nice if they at least explicitly had some economic model that acknowledged the trade-offs. Cut off 4 floors, sure, but at least be open about the fact that people are going to pay $30,000 more for their units (or looking at it another way, an average person will have to work for one whole extra year to get that amount after tax plus pay interest on their housing unit in this more carefully-planned area).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

Land costs alone are, say, $10M divided by 15 or 20 units.

But land prices are established by how many units you can get on that piece of land, assuming there's no other, more profitable, development option (say, office) for that land. Some developers will pay more than they would based on what a piece of land strictly allows under the hope that they can push for more units, but even then they factor in risk and adjust what they'll pay accordingly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

But land prices are established by how many units you can get on that piece of land, assuming there's no other, more profitable, development option (say, office) for that land. Some developers will pay more than they would based on what a piece of land strictly allows under the hope that they can push for more units, but even then they factor in risk and adjust what they'll pay accordingly.

In Vancouver it is easy to find plots of land that have been sold and resold multiple times for millions of dollars but sit empty. Land has been commoditized and is traded back and forth based on speculation and the presumption of its future expected value.

The number of units permitted on a piece of land is also a moving target. There is no guarantee that after the next election there won't be a different HRM council that throws out a bunch of the current rules. So it is possible that people will pay a currently uneconomical price for land and leave it fallow hoping that the site becomes profitable to develop in the future due to a better economy or more favourable planning rules. This was very common in Halifax for many years. There are lots in downtown Halifax that have been empty for 50 years; planning rules have come and gone during that period, and the corporate owners have happily kept the empty lots as part of their portfolio.

The planning rules really ought to take all of this into account in order to keep housing affordable and give people a good standard of living with a decent amount of living space, short commutes, and more money for discretionary spending after they've paid for housing. This hasn't been happening at all in cities like Toronto and Vancouver and the track record in Halifax is mediocre at best.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Agreed.



No. That's exactly what shouldn't be done. The whole point of Centre Plan is to get away from this. Site-specific amendments don't look at the big picture. So you end up approving a building that's maybe reasonable when looked at just on that site, but ends up having negative effects beyond its site. A site-specific amendment will never look at things holistically. Yes, the proponent will do a sewage study that says "there is enough capacity in the sewer for this project", but they will never do a study to ask "how much of that capacity is needed for other development?", and it would be unreasonable to ask for such a study on a site-specific basis because it would need to be so comprehensive (and expensive).

It seems we don't disagree on much. I actually agree it makes far more sense to have a uniform policy than do one-off amendments, which leads to bad planning and uneven outcomes.

Where we seem to only disagree is that before proposals are knocked down, the Centre Plan, which Planning Staff seem to be using for this purpose (approaching site specific amendments in a more uniform way), should be first debated and enacted, before knocking down individual proposals and using the CP as justification.

My sense is that the CP will be changed in that democratic process, perhaps amended to allow for more heights and other allowances in certain areas, that may make certain proposals now being rejected, more feasible.

If CP is passed, site specific proposals won't be needed anyways. In short: let proposals go forward that meet CP criteria now, but allow those proposals that do not sit in abeyance until CP is finalized. Developers may still change proposals in the meantime, or democratically lobby for amendments to the CP through that process just like everyone else.