[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[ILoveHalifax]

This survey is all in an effort to limit height for this project.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

This survey is all in an effort to limit height for this project.

The same thought crossed my mind for both of them. Seemed to have some tricky word play

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Duff

Here is a survey the city has launched for the developments.

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/LandUsePolicySurvey/

"It is important to foster a mix of land uses on these sites while taking care to ensure such uses remain compatible with neighboring uses. I am supportive of a mix of commercial and residential uses on these sites"

Is that a compound question? If I support the second part will it be assumed that I agree with the premise?

[Hali87]

I would say it's to gauge public opinion on the building heights. The fact that there is a "taller and slimmer if shadow effects are improved" or whatever is a step in the right direction. A lot of the questions are poorly thought out though. Only options for transport are walk, bike, or drive? Really?

I don't think the height-related questions are slanted either way, and the public has the right to express its opinion. Not everyone is going to want 28 storey towers on the site but not everyone will have a problem with that either. The "how far should apart should multiple buildings on a single lot have to be" and "how much do wind and shadows matter" type questions are a bit more interesting and probably more important at this point in my opinion. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure the planning department (/council) has the final say anyway.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I would say it's to gauge public opinion on the building heights. The fact that there is a "taller and slimmer if shadow effects are improved" or whatever is a step in the right direction. A lot of the questions are poorly thought out though. Only options for transport are walk, bike, or drive? Really?

I don't think the height-related questions are slanted either way, and the public has the right to express its opinion. Not everyone is going to want 28 storey towers on the site but not everyone will have a problem with that either. The "how far should apart should multiple buildings on a single lot have to be" and "how much do wind and shadows matter" type questions are a bit more interesting and probably more important at this point in my opinion. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure the planning department (/council) has the final say anyway.

I think it's interesting that these kinds of surveys focus so much on "Is it too tall? Is it not tall enough? How tall should it be?" questions, and nobody thinks to ask, "Is it ugly? How could it be less ugly?"

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Duff

Here is a survey the city has launched for the developments.

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/LandUsePolicySurvey/

This is a horribly designed survey. What an amateur hour.

The questions are lengthy, convoluted, and unclear. Your typical citizen will have no clue what half of these questions are asking.

Also, the questions are quite clearly designed (or are "loaded") to be skewed toward a specific answer. For example, this:

The sites we are referring to as part of this project are adjacent to taller buildings on Quinpool Road and Robie Street and shorter buildings along Parker Street, Welsford Street and Windsor Street. Providing a building which transitions can limit the visual impact on the surrounding area so that neither the taller nor the shorter buildings appear out of place or are no longer able to appropriately function for their intended use. The most important factor in providing a transition between this site and shorter residential homes to the northwest is


[ ] Limiting the overall maximum height of the buildings

[ ] Maximizing the setbacks between any proposed tower and the property line

[ ] Stepping the building at the rear of the site in an effort to transition to lower heights to the north and west

[ ] Limiting the height of the podium / base of the building at the rear of the site

[ ] I do not have a concern with the transition between these sites and lower density residential homes to the northwest

I mean, come on. That question's basic preamble is basically saying: this dev must be a transition and thus its height limited. And then offers like 4 options to limit its height, and only one "escape" route for those who have no concern, which is also badly stated. The survey question is clearly skewed to impress upon the layperson the importance of selecting one of the height limiting options.

Nevertheless, everyone on here should complete the survey (and support this high density development! )

[Keith P.]

Well, they had the first information meeting on this and the adjacent proposal on Wednesday. Reports are that the usual suspects like Peggy Cameron (Friends of the Common) are revving up to fight it because (all together now):

"It's TOO TALL!!!!".

And meanwhile, the anti-development Councillor for the area, Jennifer Watts, apparently concerned that the proposals "are not of human scale" and are not constructed out of wooden sticks, was quoted as saying "We have a quite stable neighborhood in that area and there is some concern in trying to protect it. You can put height on this corner, but it's a question of the appropriate height and where that goes. I have some concerns."

In other words, let's get out the sawzalls and cut off some height because we can't have anything tall in this town no matter where it is.

Jaysus.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, they had the first information meeting on this and the adjacent proposal on Wednesday. Reports are that the usual suspects like Peggy Cameron (Friends of the Common) are revving up to fight it because (all together now):

"It's TOO TALL!!!!".

And meanwhile, the anti-development Councillor for the area, Jennifer Watts, apparently concerned that the proposals "are not of human scale" and are not constructed out of wooden sticks, was quoted as saying "We have a quite stable neighborhood in that area and there is some concern in trying to protect it. You can put height on this corner, but it's a question of the appropriate height and where that goes. I have some concerns."

In other words, let's get out the sawzalls and cut off some height because we can't have anything tall in this town no matter where it is.

Jaysus.

Thank you Keith.

I could have written the same report and I did not go to the meeting. I also would have been scared to voice my opinion because I can also bet the whole crowd was in a frenzy and would have shouted down anybody with a different opinion. I went to one of these meetings years ago and will never go again.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, they had the first information meeting on this and the adjacent proposal on Wednesday. Reports are that the usual suspects like Peggy Cameron (Friends of the Common) are revving up to fight it because (all together now):

"It's TOO TALL!!!!".

And meanwhile, the anti-development Councillor for the area, Jennifer Watts, apparently concerned that the proposals "are not of human scale" and are not constructed out of wooden sticks, was quoted as saying "We have a quite stable neighborhood in that area and there is some concern in trying to protect it. You can put height on this corner, but it's a question of the appropriate height and where that goes. I have some concerns."

In other words, let's get out the sawzalls and cut off some height because we can't have anything tall in this town no matter where it is.

Jaysus.

The same old NIMBY platitudes. This is exactly the area for intense density development.

And narcissistic too. Why must everything we build as humans reflect us? Why must this be "human scale"? How about Giant scale? That's what I want.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The same old NIMBY platitudes. This is exactly the area for intense density development.

And narcissistic too. Why must everything we build as humans reflect us? Why must this be "human scale"? How about Giant scale? That's what I want.

Human scale just means it interacts with the street well. For example, you could argue that the Empire State Building is human scaled, despite its huge size, because its street level isn't a giant wall, but a collection of storefronts and decorative elements that acknowledge that people use this building.

Too many people use the term "human scale" to simple many "short," of course, when it's a lot more complex than that.

[ILoveHalifax]

When the term 'human scale' is used by Councillor Watts it means nothing over 2 stories tall.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

When the term 'human scale' is used by Councillor Watts it means nothing over 2 stories tall.

or a hobbit hut. I feel like she's better suited for mayor of hobbiton but she would be too tall

[Waye Mason]

Human scale can also mean meeting generally accepted minimum tower separation. I think you will find the tower sep on these is pretty low. I was told Vancouver set the tower sep standard based on "so if I walk out of my bathroom nekkid what can my neighbours see?" I think these kinds of things are important, eh?

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Human scale can also mean meeting generally accepted minimum tower separation. I think you will find the tower sep on these is pretty low. I was told Vancouver set the tower sep standard based on "so if I walk out of my bathroom nekkid what can my neighbours see?" I think these kinds of things are important, eh?

Sure they are, but wouldn't a set of curtains fix that problem?

[ILoveHalifax]

Amazing how our city councillors can come up with so much BS in an effort to not build any tall buildings in this city, eh.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Human scale can also mean meeting generally accepted minimum tower separation. I think you will find the tower sep on these is pretty low. I was told Vancouver set the tower sep standard based on "so if I walk out of my bathroom nekkid what can my neighbours see?" I think these kinds of things are important, eh?

In most old areas of Halifax/Dartmouth, we only have eight feet between two story houses (driveways), and oddly enough many bathroom windows look at other windows. I guess they weren't that Victorian.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Amazing how our city councillors can come up with so much BS in an effort to not build any tall buildings in this city, eh.

To be fair, what you're dismissing as "BS" is the kind of urban-planning considerations deployed throughout the western world nowadays. I'm not saying I agree with Jennifer Watts on this in particular, but she didn't invent the term "human scale." See here.

I know that on this forum there are a handful of people who think bigger is always better, and modern cities should be all about enormous, monolithic, imposing skylines and shadowy skyscraper canyons, but that's not how most people want to live, in this or any city.

Even skyscraper enthusiasts should be able to appreciate the nuances of urban planning. And not just assume that people are NIMBY's because they want to pause and consider the implications of development projects.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair, what you're dismissing as "BS" is the kind of urban-planning considerations deployed throughout the western world nowadays. I'm not saying I agree with Jennifer Watts on this in particular, but she didn't invent the term "human scale." See here.

I know that on this forum there are a handful of people who think bigger is always better, and modern cities should be all about enormous, monolithic, imposing skylines and shadowy skyscraper canyons, but that's not how most people want to live, in this or any city.

Even skyscraper enthusiasts should be able to appreciate the nuances of urban planning. And not just assume that people are NIMBY's because they want to pause and consider the implications of development projects.

+1. I'm also about 99% sure that 0 councilors had anything to do with the design of this survey. It looks more like something written by a staffer with too many deadlines or outsourced to a private firm or student.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Human scale can also mean meeting generally accepted minimum tower separation. I think you will find the tower sep on these is pretty low. I was told Vancouver set the tower sep standard based on "so if I walk out of my bathroom nekkid what can my neighbours see?" I think these kinds of things are important, eh?

By that argument, Waye, my two storey townhouse should have a min sep from my neighbours too as I also like to wander around my home "nekkid".

I think the regulatory regime in HRM permits 3m to the property line? I'm not bragging or anything, but that allows some pretty hi-def views!

[Waye Mason]

Amazing how some people on this board will talk glowingly and longingly about Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, New York and then as soon as those places do something the posters don't like, discard that example.