General Updates and News - Page 163

kph06 · #**3241** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 12:37 AM**

Watts is currently speaking against the Quinpool Rd. project and basically said nothing over 6 stories should be allowed.

Keith P. · #**3242** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kph06

Watts is currently speaking against the Quinpool Rd. project and basically said nothing over 6 stories should be allowed.

Just shows that a person can have lots of book learnin' and still be an idiot.

cormiermax · #**3243** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 12:50 AM**

I hope someone there put her in her place.

someone123 · #**3244** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 1:16 AM**

Did she explain why 8 floors are different from 6 or is she just adopting a symbolic "tough on development" stance to please her constituents?

kph06 · #**3245** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Did she explain why 8 floors are different from 6 or is she just adopting a symbolic "tough on development" stance to please her constituents?

I think she was looking back to HRM by Design notes and said the consensus though 3 or 4 floors was good for Quinpool, she thought that 6 would be the max for the area. She "feared" this would be another St. Joseph's development - so I guess that's a development that is proposed at a resonable height but then people like her sling mud at it till it is shrunk? I had to go out after she spoke, but quickly saw that Sloane thought it should go to public consultation, which is reasonable. Consultation however will for sure bring out the Pacey's, they live on Yukon St., so actually somewhat in their neighborhood compared to their other vendetta's. Either way, it made it beyond this round.

According to Tim Bousquet's live-tweeting of council (which is skewed to his biases, but still a useful way to follow it if I can't watch it live) - Hensbee thought it should be taller.

someone123 · #**3246** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 3:34 AM**

Quinpool shall be a playground for Jennifer Watts types, with 3 storey buildings, bike lanes, maybe some traffic calming, half-empty walkable schools for the kids. They can buy up the empty lots and turn them into parks. Everybody else can pay their taxes and then go f*ck themselves.

What a crew!

RyeJay · #**3247** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 4:06 AM**

This modest proposal of 8 floors is actually grounds for Watts to be grateful. She needs to be reminded of the many who'd love to see Quinpool with towers. She needs to also be reminded of the economical and environmental demand for Quinpool to host much, much more density.

Though Quinpool's businesses are mainly supported by the two large residential areas they exist between, I hope it is seen more that this clientele is not opposed to modest height: certainly not a mere 8 floors. Even I am frustrated that the height allowances for Quinpool Road are shorter than those of the downtown.

Question:
Why are people concerned about temporary shadows a mid-rise building would cast upon a low-rise building across the street? Adjacent residential homes behind the low-rise buildings have nothing to worry about, because the brave low-rise buildings are bearing the brunt of the evil shadows.

8 floors is too short.

cormiermax · #**3248** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 4:14 AM**

I agree 8 floors is far too short. They should be looking at something it the 20 range, specially for a prominent site on Quinpool.

halifaxboyns · #**3249** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 4:51 AM**

Did they at least go ahead with initiating the proposal?

Phalanx · #**3250** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 5:49 AM**

I, unfortunately, actually live in her district. I sent a (polite) email asking for an explanation of her position on this one just for fun. We'll see if I get a reply.

Aya_Akai · #**3251** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 7:43 AM**

I noticed this this evening while I was walking home from a friends house in Colby Village, at the corner of Caldwell and Hampton Green

http://halifax.ca/planning/Case17343Details.html

4 story seniors apartment complex attatched to a church, nothing too out of the ordinary, I have a funny feeling it's going to look just awful when it's finished.. we can hope for a good finish, right?.. lol.. it'll certainly bring about change to that area, with it being hovering right over the current colby plaza Zellers- soon to be walmart.

kph06 · #**3252** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 10:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Did they at least go ahead with initiating the proposal?

Yes, this got the green light. I was shocked she would try to stop it this early.

halifaxboyns · #**3253** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kph06

Yes, this got the green light. I was shocked she would try to stop it this early.

I'm not, this isn't the first time she's tried to stop something. I believe she tried to stop the YMCA application too. This whole process to initiate an application doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In many other cities, once someone submits a complete application for rezoning or special development provisions (with fees) that process starts. Council only gets involved at the end when a decision is needed.

someone123 · #**3254** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 5:55 PM**

Years ago the PCC could do this to ALL peninsula developments, including large downtown developments of regional importance. Dawn Sloane blocked the original brewery tower, for example, and then the system was changed so that all of regional council could vote on higher-valued projects.

I think the whole system is flawed since a big part of the development process is higher-level regional planning objectives. TYou cannot accomplish goals like mitigating suburban sprawl if development practices are determined by NIMBYs. You can set targets and guidelines but if the individual developments are all killed of one reason or another then the whole process fails.

Local feedback should be included but the residents in one area shouldn't have veto power over everything built there because of their councillor. That is very close to being the situation in some areas where community councils require only 2 "no" votes from councillors (Sloane + Watts -- anybody want to check their voting record?) to stop a proposal dead in its tracks.

someone123 · #**3255** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 8:47 PM**

Apparently council also rescinded the St. Pat's sale. Bonus points if HRM bureaucrats somehow eventually find a way to sue the developer.

The city has now managed to create three fiascos in one small neighbourhood:

-Jazz condos
-Gottingen subsidized housing hold ups
-St. Pat's

My belief is that whatever success has been experienced on the peninsula over the last few years has happened more in spite of the city's municipal government rather than because of it. It is hard to over-emphasize how petty, disorganized, and incompetent the city appears.

resetcbu1 · #**3256** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 9:14 PM**

Especially like an area like the city's north end, this part of town can really benefit from some quality developments and all the city seems to do is systematically reduce the chances of any of these quality developments taking place, although there was a lot of outcry from residents of that area over the saint Pat's thing , I'm not sure why, misinformation is the only thing I could imagine?

haligonia · #**3257** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 9:22 PM**

I think there was some sort of law that requires the city to offer surplus municipal buildings (schools) to community groups/non profits before selling it. I could be wrong, but this is what I've come to believe after hearing a bit of information.

someone123 · #**3258** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 10:31 PM**

The whole thing is a little vague. Apparently the city doesn't have to go with an offer from a community group but they are supposed to entertain proposals from them first..? Sounds like a feel-good rule rubber stamped by council.

In either case somebody has dropped the ball -- they may or may not have followed their own procedures and in either case they are flaking out on the developer. Yet another sign for developers to be wary of HRM deals.

Keith P. · #**3259** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by haligonia

I think there was some sort of law that requires the city to offer surplus municipal buildings (schools) to community groups/non profits before selling it. I could be wrong, but this is what I've come to believe after hearing a bit of information.

It's not a law. However, HRM has a policy that states that interested community groups must have an opportunity to decide if they wanted to make a proposal on the property. This is where it gets murky. Our esteemed mayor states that staff did indeed meet with said groups as per the policy. Said groups also submitted multiple proposals, which were subpar compared to that of the Metleges. On the basis of staff evaluation, the Metlege proposal was recommended, approved by council, and then an attempted motion of reconsideration was dealt with and voted down A SECOND TIME. The way HRM works, that is supposed to be it, game over.

That is when Rev. Britton, a.k.a. the mouth that roared, played the Africville card and our inept council folded like a house of cards. Outside of any known process or rule under the HRM Charter, they passed a motion last night to rescind the original decision, which is procedurally impossible. Good luck with that lawsuit, HRM. Shameful.

Seemingly unquestioned in all of this is the role of the area councillor, Dawn Sloane, who from all appearances sat on the sidelines watching Coronation Street and sipping tea while receiving progress reports on all of this and doing nothing to ensure the community groups were heard. Naturally, she is now leading the charge to throw staff under the bus.

Once again HRM Council manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

haligonia · #**3260** Posted **Jan 11, 2012, 11:40 PM**

Thanks for the clarification!