General Updates and News

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Some of that money was diverted to Quinpool Rd.

But did they actually begin construction of anything on Quinpool? Last I heard it was stalled because they were waiting for federal funding.

[Keith P.]

Correct, nothing has happened on Quinpool.

[resetcbu1]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Correct, nothing has happened on Quinpool.

Surprise surprise!

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

But did they actually begin construction of anything on Quinpool? Last I heard it was stalled because they were waiting for federal funding.

If the Coast has it correct, that would be because the feds were determined to pour money into the burbs and ruled out streetscape projects. So instead we got the hugely overbudgeted Washmill Lake Overpass.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

If the Coast has it correct, that would be because the feds were determined to pour money into the burbs and ruled out streetscape projects. So instead we got the hugely overbudgeted Washmill Lake Overpass.

Yeah, but at the end of the day the job of maintaining the streets and sidewalks falls to the city, not the federal government.

It should also be noted that the ice rinks in Bedford were built despite the fact that the requested federal funding for that project did not go through.

Ultimately this is just a question of priorities and follow-through. The state of Halifax's main shopping streets is a low priority for HRM regional council -- so low that they cannot even implement a streetscaping project with a budget of a few million dollars over a multi-year time frame.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, but at the end of the day the job of maintaining the streets and sidewalks falls to the city, not the federal government.

It should also be noted that the ice rinks in Bedford were built despite the fact that the requested federal funding for that project did not go through.

Ultimately this is just a question of priorities and follow-through. The state of Halifax's main shopping streets is a low priority for HRM regional council -- so low that they cannot even implement a streetscaping project with a budget of a few million dollars over a multi-year time frame.

I agree completely. Lack of federal funding is not an excuse, but it's annoying that the feds will pony up for overpasses in the burbs, while something that will benefit the urban area was arbitrarily ruled out.

[halifaxboyns]

Halifax’s legendary Pizza Corner will lose one of its own this spring.

After more than 20 years in operation, May 31 will mark the final night King of Donair will serve up its famed mega-sized pizza slices and loaded donairs from its downtown location at 1560 Grafton St.

On Tuesday evening, a battle in small claims court played out between King of Donair owner Bassam Nahas and landlord John Manolopoulos regarding compensation for renovations Nahas funded.

In an interview Wednesday, Nahas likened the scenario to a nasty divorce.

“None of this is fun to go through. Life is too short and I just want this over with. I won’t say we were evicted. Our lease comes to an end on May 31 and landlord and tenant could not see eye to eye.”

The Chronicle Herald contacted Manolopoulos by phone Wednesday, but he declined to comment on the matter.

Nahas, meantime, said he contributed about $10,000 to upgrade the aging property, but its problems run much deeper. The business was shut down for three months in 2010 after construction crews discovered major plumbing issues, as well as rotten subfloors and floor joists. To date Nahas said nearly $40,000 has been spent on plumbing, flooring and electrical upgrades, to name a few expenses.

The rest of the story from the CH online is here.

[Dmajackson]

Councillor Sloane will be bringing this forward to Regional Council on Tuesday. The subject properties surround Cornwallis Park and include the South Street townhouses that burnt down a couple of years ago and are up for redevelopment. The current pre- and post-bonus height limits are 10-11m.

(ii) “To request that Council:

1. Authorize staff to include, as part of the first annual review of the Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy and the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-Law, the consideration of potential amendments to the Maximum Pre-Bonus and Maximum Post-Bonus Height Maps to increase the allowable height on properties identified by civic addressees 5161-5175 South Street, 1161-1203 Hollis Street, and 1075-1145 Barrington Street, Halifax to 22 metres, as was originally recommended by the Urban Design Task Force, and for the maximum height of these properties to be calculated as per the definition of building height, as contained under Part 2 of the Land Use By-Law.

2. Authorize staff to also consider amendments to the requirement for the provision of landscaped open space for the properties identified by civic addresses 5161-5175 South Street, Halifax, to allow for a full transfer to rooftops and a decrease in the required amount of landscaped open space from 11.24 square metres per dwelling unit to 5 square metres per dwelling unit.

3. Request that staff follow the public participation program approved by Council on February 25, 1997.

[kph06]

That seems like an odd motion, she was the one that made HRM by Design lower the height in this area after all the public workshops.

[resetcbu1]

maybe she's buddy, buddy with the developer or there is some kind of gain for her ?

Also with elections comming up and the recent out-cry for development from a lage part of the general public , this could be an attempt to secure votes?

[spaustin]

I suspect she pushed for low-height there to try and prevent anyone from taking down the old rowhouses. Since fire doesn't listen to municipal bylaws, the rowhouses were destroyed anyway. Now that they're gone, no need to stick to the really low height limit.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

maybe she's buddy, buddy with the developer or there is some kind of gain for her ?

Also with elections comming up and the recent out-cry for development from a lage part of the general public , this could be an attempt to secure votes?

This had certainly better not be the case.

[kph06]

I thought it was strange when the row houses were being demolished she was interviewed in the news paper, her comment at the time that it would be a quick amendment to increase the heights - quite a departure from her usual stance.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by kph06

I thought it was strange when the row houses were being demolished she was interviewed in the news paper, her comment at the time that it would be a quick amendment to increase the heights - quite a departure from her usual stance.

I'm happy about a notion to allow more height, but I agree with you that it's suspect.

[fenwick16]

I think that having the height limits in that area increased to 22 meters will be good for the neighbourhood. The increase in height limit to 22 meters will allow for 7 storey apartment buildings which should suit that area well.

Here is an image of the height limits in that area (Cornwallis Park is the area marked with an 11 meter height limit). The row houses, which were unfortunately destroyed by fire, are immediately to the north of Cornwallis Park.

One question - will the area marked 13.716 meters be entirely replaced with a 22 meter limit?

[kph06]

So looking up those civic addresses shows something out of order.

1161-1203 Hollis is the VIA Rail station and Westin
1075-1145 Barrington is the Superstore
5161-5175 South is the recently demolished row houses and Taj Mahal.

2 of these are unlikely to see any redevelopment in the next 20 years. What I find odd is that the yellow building on South was not included. Why not? Its on the same block as the row houses, it borders Cornwallis park as the motion seems to address, and it seems to have a greater chance at redevelopment then the Superstore or Westin. Maybe I'm in too much of a conspiracy mood, but something seems fishy with this proposal.

[someone123]

Yikes. Tim Bousquet has another St. Pat's-Alexander article up: http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2012/01/21/false-framing-of-the-st-pats-alexandra-sale

Apparently the city's bureaucracy is racist, the CAO is trying to sell off land so he can build a stadium, Jono intends to let the site sit empty for "at least a decade" and therefore obviously bought it for a below-market price from the city...

He must be studying Gloria's rhetorical techniques. At this point the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that I'm not sure those articles are even worth reading.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by kph06

So looking up those civic addresses shows something out of order.

1161-1203 Hollis is the VIA Rail station and Westin
1075-1145 Barrington is the Superstore
5161-5175 South is the recently demolished row houses and Taj Mahal.

2 of these are unlikely to see any redevelopment in the next 20 years. What I find odd is that the yellow building on South was not included. Why not? Its on the same block as the row houses, it borders Cornwallis park as the motion seems to address, and it seems to have a greater chance at redevelopment then the Superstore or Westin. Maybe I'm in too much of a conspiracy mood, but something seems fishy with this proposal.

Here is the original 1st draft of the HRM_by_Design height limits as proposed by the Urban Design Task Force - map 7 of this document - http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/MapsVolume1SPSWeb.pdf. Originally all of the diagonally-lined area was to be 70' height limits (21.3 meters). However, probably the amendment is just for the civic addresses listed.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Councillor Sloane will be bringing this forward to Regional Council on Tuesday. The subject properties surround Cornwallis Park and include the South Street townhouses that burnt down a couple of years ago and are up for redevelopment. The current pre- and post-bonus height limits are 10-11m.

(ii) “To request that Council:

2. Authorize staff to also consider amendments to the requirement for the provision of landscaped open space for the properties identified by civic addresses 5161-5175 South Street, Halifax, to allow for a full transfer to rooftops and a decrease in the required amount of landscaped open space from 11.24 square metres per dwelling unit to 5 square metres per dwelling unit.

3. Request that staff follow the public participation program approved by Council on February 25, 1997.

Why don't they just fix the Landscape Open Space requirements so that ALL developments can put the open space on the roof? The requirement is clearly so large as to make it nearly impossible to build much of anything, and it's holding up a couple of planned residential developments. This issue was supposed to come to council for resolution and fell off the map.

Also, why would a councillor request staff to follow the pulic participation program? Wouldn't it be policy, that should be followed all the time? I don't know what this program is, but the request just sounds off, especially considering the screw ups HRM makes by selectively implementing policy and decision making procedures.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I agree completely. Lack of federal funding is not an excuse, but it's annoying that the feds will pony up for overpasses in the burbs, while something that will benefit the urban area was arbitrarily ruled out.

It's so frustrating our council doesn't understand or care about the tax base implications of neglecting the downtown core. What competent business would simply neglect their most valuable asset? At the least you think this aspect would keep them interested.