General Updates and News

[atbw]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have always found Halifax planning pretty opaque.

I wonder how long it will be before we see something comparable to this Penhorn development around HSC? It would be a bit different because that area is more commercially successful; the mall itself may or may not be carved up. But the surface lots could be replaced with structured parking and some new towers, maybe quite tall (hopefully not sawed off for political reasons), could be built. The malls are commercial and transit hubs that are a good place to add density.

Around Vancouver many malls are getting this treatment, including eventually Metrotown which is quite successful.

I think this approach is one of the best approaches to adding density to the suburbs. Vast expanses of surface lots ready to be upgraded. I imagine Lacewood & Dunbrack would be a great spot for mixed use intensification.

[Jonovision]

And there is also MicMac Mall lands which are already in the early planning stages for redevelopment. I predict they could get some really good height in there.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by atbw

I think this approach is one of the best approaches to adding density to the suburbs. Vast expanses of surface lots ready to be upgraded. I imagine Lacewood & Dunbrack would be a great spot for mixed use intensification.

From the rendering you shared there seemed to be some park space too, it would be a definite bonus over the vast expanses of parking lot. That’s assuming they don’t just built some Larry Uteck specials.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

From the rendering you shared there seemed to be some park space too, it would be a definite bonus over the vast expanses of parking lot. That’s assuming they don’t just built some Larry Uteck specials.

I think we'll see slightly cookie-cutter architecture, but I'm hopeful that it's more pedestrian oriented than the tower-on-a-parking-garage numbers we see on Washmill Lake. If you can walk out your front door and be on the sidewalk on a street network, that's infinitely better than walking into and across a parking lot.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

And there is also MicMac Mall lands which are already in the early planning stages for redevelopment. I predict they could get some really good height in there.

Max height of 20M set by Centre Plan for all of Mic Mac lands except on Woodland, which are 38M.

Also Penhorn has a max height of 20m as well so not sure how they plan on doing all this?

The only place that allows tall buildings in Dartmouth is Nantucket and the commercial strip on Highfield Park Dr.

The more I look at the Centre Plan map, the less hope I have for this cities future. We all should get used to losing heritage properties at a faster pace than we currently are, as demand will overwhelm the improbable scenario these maps predict. It's because they do so without basic mathematics like supply and demand to inform the decision and are more worried about pedantic issues then the larger issues that the city faces.

We're going to lose many character buildings to make way for bland facsimiles that are 3 or 4 stories taller then multiply that effect to meet the demand. It's already begun in some parts of the city and will accelerate as the population continues to grow

I'm sure to get someone looking down from their Ivory Tower and will try to talk down my point with planning jargon. The problem is it won't change the fact that people are being priced out of their rentals due to negligence on the part of the planning department. This is the stuff they're supposed to be planning for instead they're restricting giant swathes of core of the city from changing further exacerbating the issue for future residents. Was there any thought about where the demand will go or is that just an afterthought.
A cities ability to function is not hampered by effective use of its land. It's hampered by wrongheaded notions that tall buildings cause a plethora of social ills which this plan perpetuates.

[Keith P.]

Can we just scrap the Centre Plan already? It was rushed into a vote and Council had no idea what they were voting on when they passed it. At least send it back for some major revisions.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Can we just scrap the Centre Plan already? It was rushed into a vote and Council had no idea what they were voting on when they passed it. At least send it back for some major revisions.

Seriously. Some of the height restrictions in particular seem arbitrary and silly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Seriously. Some of the height restrictions in particular seem arbitrary and silly.

Agreed. A revision on height restrictions would go a long way.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

We're going to lose many character buildings to make way for bland facsimiles that are 3 or 4 stories taller then multiply that effect to meet the demand. It's already begun in some parts of the city and will accelerate as the population continues to grow

I'm sure to get someone looking down from their Ivory Tower and will try to talk down my point with planning jargon. The problem is it won't change the fact that people are being priced out of their rentals due to negligence on the part of the planning department. This is the stuff they're supposed to be planning for instead they're restricting giant swathes of core of the city from changing further exacerbating the issue for future residents.

Yes. If there's a certain amount of development pressure and heights are restricted more sites will tend to be developed. Furthermore with small developments there's less budget to preserve/move/adapt heritage buildings on the site.

The Heritage Trust used to talk about height limits preserving old buildings and I think we can say at this point it didn't turn out that way.

I think the bright spots of the Centre Plan are the parts that describe general principles of what good development looks like, e.g. street presence and pedestrian friendliness instead of parking and blank walls. Height is of secondary importance in establishing neighbourhoods that people enjoy spending time in but you can sure screw things up if you impose bad limits.

I worry we have not even seen the full effect of the Centre Plan yet since so many towers under construction now are using old development agreements. There's a fixed supply of those.

[Jonovision]

These future growth nodes work a bit different from the other sites under the Centre Plan. They are required to go through the development agreement process to lay out the masterplan for the site. This includes changing the designated maximum heights for the different development blocks that will be created. The current 20m height is just a place holder for now.

You can see this in the Penhorn plan. It shows multiple 12 storey buildings. You can't fit a 12 storey building into a 20m height. So those will be adjusted through the development agreement.

I think you could easily see some 20 storey buildings put in around MicMac when that one is planned out.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This includes changing the designated maximum heights for the different development blocks that will be created. The current 20m height is just a place holder for now.

I did not know this detail and it makes the plan seem better, although I still think a lot of height limits are too low and treated as though they are too sacred (and FAR is generally better, and often a taller and narrower tower works better). It's odd that they put 20 m and not something more like "TBD" on the maps.

I don't believe anybody can predict what the right market height of an apartment building on say Young Street in the North End is going to be 10 years from now. There could be 0 demand, it could be 15 storeys, it could be 40. The Centre Plan approval was so long that it effectively had those kinds of predictions embedded in it.

The fixed heights and quick approvals are a win for the run-of-the-mill buildings like 8 floor residential which previously could not proceed as-of-right and would have had years of appeals.

[Querce]

from the Regional Centre Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy:

Policy 10.3
This Plan and the Land Use By-law may be reviewed periodically, and Council shall consider a comprehensive review every ten years from the date of adoption, or from the date that the most recent ten-year review has come into effect.

so it can be reviewed periodically, but must be reviewed at least every 10 years

[Jonovision]

Also of note. The large block bounded by Robie, Almond and Young in Halifax is mostly all labeled as Future Growth Node as well so will require a masterplan and could potentially include some greater height because of that.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes. If there's a certain amount of development pressure and heights are restricted more sites will tend to be developed. Furthermore with small developments there's less budget to preserve/move/adapt heritage buildings on the site.

The Heritage Trust used to talk about height limits preserving old buildings and I think we can say at this point it didn't turn out that way.

I think the bright spots of the Centre Plan are the parts that describe general principles of what good development looks like, e.g. street presence and pedestrian friendliness instead of parking and blank walls. Height is of secondary importance in establishing neighbourhoods that people enjoy spending time in but you can sure screw things up if you impose bad limits.

I worry we have not even seen the full effect of the Centre Plan yet since so many towers under construction now are using old development agreements. There's a fixed supply of those.

I couldn't agree more. The overhaul was long overdue and the Centre Plan brings in some great elements especially dealing with the grand design aspects of the community as well as streamlines the permit process for builders.

My problem is that during this process, some groups like the HT were able to enshrine their version of our heritage within it. Namely, Car Culture planning dogma that wants short, spread out cities that rely on cars produced in North America. Urban lifestyle used to be a sign of economic success that drove innovation in how we lived our day to day lives. Massive investments in public infrastructure were made that created cities that inspired. Now, because we hold down-home rural life as the signs of success, or to "escape the rat race" we now drive people and investment outside of the city. It also creates problems electorally, as urban questions often get rural answers. So it's a problem worth addressing when discussing community design.

This is our new heritage in North America, planners from 1945-2005 gleefully planned new neighborhoods and communities with what they thought was the new and improved way to build. Today, they're a giant drain on our cities financial and political capital.
That is the heritage they're trying to save. We all thought it meant the old streetscapes and maritime military tradition but these people are trying to save their spread out way of life.

So they found the an angle to have it included within the Centre Plan using outdated planning dogma to sneak in height restrictions for us all. It spells out plainly within the presentations. We lose the Brightwood Viewplanes, which is a victory but we trade them for a broader height restrictions over most of Dartmouth and Halifax. https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/1041/widgets/70591/documents/44595 "Dartmouth Land use Bylaws do not have a height limit, The Centre Plan sets one." Pg.34


If the FGN zoning is more flexible why is it used so sparingly on the map? http://www.arcgis.com/apps/InformationLookup/index.html?appid=00a11a2ea9aa487382eb7a6473e6c33c
They are limited to the malls, Agricola, Yonge and Robie area as well as a few other smaller sites, from now until potentially 2030 when a review can happen. Expecting to force the majority of large scale development to these localized places will cause massive loss of our heritage as a spin off. Oddly enough Agricola is slated for some of the larger grouping of "taller" buildings zoned Centre next to the largest grouping of FGN's. So, I guess a fine grained streetscape is now slated for urban renewal because the bulk of new denser urban housing, is restricted from other empty sites. If market demands persist, that area is going to change quickly.

On the other hand, outside of these limited areas we'll get lots of buildings that are the bare minimum in the Centre Plan. They will pass any risk assessment team from financiers, while qualifying the project for a loan. The building gets built, but we miss an opportunity for a better, taller one because the small one conforms. Most companies will go with the safe bet and we end up with a city full of safe bets outside these designated zones. Look at the former RCMP building on Bayers Rd. They had a master plan done and just threw it out due to "new planning regulations". Things happen in real time, it was designated corridor and as IanWatson confirmed any variances would be minimal. Now, taxpayers dollars spent on the original study were wasted but another prime location is put back on the shelf and the value of the land just dropped when the government goes to sell it. We just actively discouraged a development for a newly implemented procedural reason that actually would have furthered our legislated goal and reason we created of the Centre Plan in the first place...

So I understand the need for the Centre Plan and its ability to be reviewed intermittently. I applaud the painstaking work that went into many details that needed ironing out. It's comprehensive and simplifies a lot of overlap in the LUBS due to amalgamation. It definitely makes building a project in Halifax easier but its just that it also made it easier for the Heritage Trust to continue protecting it's version of heritage.

[someone123]

There's lots of weird stuff on the map. Like St. Pat's-Alexandra being max 14 m when 1 block over says 90 m. Then the Dal block on Queen Street is 28 m but it already has a 14 storey building on it that is around 50+ years old.

The Fenwick site says max 26 m. The old hospital area is 38 m. I would guess the 1940's hospital on that block is about that height and I'm not sure why that makes sense as a limit. You could potentially put a tower with about a 100 m setback on that hospital site but it would be limited to 38 m.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I couldn't agree more. The overhaul was long overdue and the Centre Plan brings in some great elements especially dealing with the grand design aspects of the community as well

This is our new heritage in North America, planners from 1945-2005 gleefully planned new neighborhoods and communities with what they thought was the new and improved way to build. Today, they're a giant drain on our cities financial and political capital.
That is the heritage they're trying to save. We all thought it meant the old streetscapes and maritime military tradition but these people are trying to save their spread out way of life.
https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/1041/widgets/70591/documents/44595 "Dartmouth Land use Bylaws do not have a height limit, The Centre Plan sets one." Pg.34

So where do you live and how many kids do you have living with you ?
Our kids are gone but they enjoyed where they lived in an old house 100 yards from Dartmouth Common and 300 yards from schools.
I see no reason why families should live in towers, other than if they have been forced to live in them by high housing prices or if they live in dense cities and hoping and praying they will avoid COVID. No point in comparing us with Europe or other provinces because Nova Scotia is not Rotterdam,Barcelona and other places beloved by planning gurus who know next to nothing about other small cities in the world. Tell me one other place outside eastern Canada where in 24 hours you can have high winds,4 inches of snow followed by 50 mm of rain and a temperature swing of over 20C. This place is a forecasters nightmare.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

If the FGN zoning is more flexible why is it used so sparingly on the map? http://www.arcgis.com/apps/InformationLookup/index.html?appid=00a11a2ea9aa487382eb7a6473e6c33c
They are limited to the malls, Agricola, Yonge and Robie area as well as a few other smaller sites, from now until potentially 2030 when a review can happen. Expecting to force the majority of large scale development to these localized places will cause massive loss of our heritage as a spin off. Oddly enough Agricola is slated for some of the larger grouping of "taller" buildings zoned Centre next to the largest grouping of FGN's. So, I guess a fine grained streetscape is now slated for urban renewal because the bulk of new denser urban housing, is restricted from other empty sites. If market demands persist, that area is going to change quickly.

One thing that's coming in package B is a significant addition to heritage districts and a revised Heritage Development Agreement. It simplifies the tradeoff of height in exchange for heritage restoration, and also allows more flexibility on those given sites.

As per the car-oriented culture, there's going to be a section that deals with the suburbs and will hopefully allow for more densification of those areas that are currently dominated by low rise apartments and single family homes.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I couldn't agree more. The overhaul was long overdue and the Centre Plan brings in some great elements especially dealing with the grand design aspects of the community as well as streamlines the permit process for builders.

My problem is that during this process, some groups like the HT were able to enshrine their version of our heritage within it. Namely, Car Culture planning dogma that wants short, spread out cities that rely on cars produced in North America. Urban lifestyle used to be a sign of economic success that drove innovation in how we lived our day to day lives. Massive investments in public infrastructure were made that created cities that inspired. Now, because we hold down-home rural life as the signs of success, or to "escape the rat race" we now drive people and investment outside of the city. It also creates problems electorally, as urban questions often get rural answers. So it's a problem worth addressing when discussing community design.

This is our new heritage in North America, planners from 1945-2005 gleefully planned new neighborhoods and communities with what they thought was the new and improved way to build. Today, they're a giant drain on our cities financial and political capital.
That is the heritage they're trying to save. We all thought it meant the old streetscapes and maritime military tradition but these people are trying to save their spread out way of life.

So they found the an angle to have it included within the Centre Plan using outdated planning dogma to sneak in height restrictions for us all. It spells out plainly within the presentations. We lose the Brightwood Viewplanes, which is a victory but we trade them for a broader height restrictions over most of Dartmouth and Halifax. https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/1041/widgets/70591/documents/44595 "Dartmouth Land use Bylaws do not have a height limit, The Centre Plan sets one." Pg.34


If the FGN zoning is more flexible why is it used so sparingly on the map? http://www.arcgis.com/apps/InformationLookup/index.html?appid=00a11a2ea9aa487382eb7a6473e6c33c
They are limited to the malls, Agricola, Yonge and Robie area as well as a few other smaller sites, from now until potentially 2030 when a review can happen. Expecting to force the majority of large scale development to these localized places will cause massive loss of our heritage as a spin off. Oddly enough Agricola is slated for some of the larger grouping of "taller" buildings zoned Centre next to the largest grouping of FGN's. So, I guess a fine grained streetscape is now slated for urban renewal because the bulk of new denser urban housing, is restricted from other empty sites. If market demands persist, that area is going to change quickly.

On the other hand, outside of these limited areas we'll get lots of buildings that are the bare minimum in the Centre Plan. They will pass any risk assessment team from financiers, while qualifying the project for a loan. The building gets built, but we miss an opportunity for a better, taller one because the small one conforms. Most companies will go with the safe bet and we end up with a city full of safe bets outside these designated zones. Look at the former RCMP building on Bayers Rd. They had a master plan done and just threw it out due to "new planning regulations". Things happen in real time, it was designated corridor and as IanWatson confirmed any variances would be minimal. Now, taxpayers dollars spent on the original study were wasted but another prime location is put back on the shelf and the value of the land just dropped when the government goes to sell it. We just actively discouraged a development for a newly implemented procedural reason that actually would have furthered our legislated goal and reason we created of the Centre Plan in the first place...

So I understand the need for the Centre Plan and its ability to be reviewed intermittently. I applaud the painstaking work that went into many details that needed ironing out. It's comprehensive and simplifies a lot of overlap in the LUBS due to amalgamation. It definitely makes building a project in Halifax easier but its just that it also made it easier for the Heritage Trust to continue protecting it's version of heritage.

Damn, we could have been like Melbourne, with a diversity of height and heritage.

I see where the city is going and, while some are well intentioned, they don't understand the long term impacts of limited density in the core.

I will bet that Cogswell lands will eventually be a wasted opportunity: the places where height should be allowed (and were referenced by these people) will become the new battlegrounds.

Will the RCMP site be built to the original spec, what about the Kempt road lands, Windsor at Young? Time will tell.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

My problem is that during this process, some groups like the HT were able to enshrine their version of our heritage within it. Namely, Car Culture planning dogma that wants short, spread out cities that rely on cars produced in North America. Urban lifestyle used to be a sign of economic success that drove innovation in how we lived our day to day lives. Massive investments in public infrastructure were made that created cities that inspired. Now, because we hold down-home rural life as the signs of success, or to "escape the rat race" we now drive people and investment outside of the city. It also creates problems electorally, as urban questions often get rural answers. So it's a problem worth addressing when discussing community design.

This is our new heritage in North America, planners from 1945-2005 gleefully planned new neighborhoods and communities with what they thought was the new and improved way to build. Today, they're a giant drain on our cities financial and political capital.
That is the heritage they're trying to save. We all thought it meant the old streetscapes and maritime military tradition but these people are trying to save their spread out way of life.

It's this "sky is falling" mindset - that everybody aspires to this type of urban planner nirvana - that frustrates me. I understand the need for tall buildings and density in the core of the city, but damn, not everybody aspires to live in an apartment or condo. It's great for those that do, but when urban enthusiasts appear to suggest that there shouldn't be areas for people to live in a house with a back yard, or shouldn't be able to use a car to get to where they need to go... in Canada of all places, a country with large land areas and not the type of crowding that has become necessary in European countries with small land areas and large populations... I get turned off.

But hey, that's just my

[someone123]

The thing that stands out to me is that a lot of metro Halifax suburbs are much worse for pedestrians than they could be with some comparatively minor tweaking. And a lot of the bad areas are higher density apartment block type development.