[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

How many people feel there is ZERO value protecting views from the Citadel? Polls suggest a modest majority of Haligonians think the views are valuable. I would bet that the support for view protection is broad, but very shallow. People weren't asked: views or housing downtown; or views or office space; views or density. That's the real question, what are the tradeoffs we are willing to make for the views? HRMbyDesign was a miserable failure at discussing this question, since the viewplanes were one basis for the new plan.

And finally, how much density do people think we need downtown? You don't need skyscrapers to get density. The Vic is ten storeys tall, and has 82 units. Since it sits on just a third of an acre it's net density is almost 250 units/acre. The W suites is well over 100 units an acre. That's high density development, just not high rise. I doubt that land was cheap either, but I'm assuming the developers made money on these mid-rise buildings. Edward Gleaser's argument that we need skyscrapers for affordability holds in places like London, Paris, NY, where there is a huge shortage of supply and the only place to go is up. In the context of Halifax I think it's more appropriate to frame Gleaser's argument as more units are needed for affordability - we have lots of empty lots and room for infill. Plus the demand is less extreme. Don't restrict demand is the key. You can do that and still regulate the number of tall buildings.

I think when polls are conducted regarding views from the Citadel, people should be asked what they like to view from the Citadel. In my opinion, the city and all of its buildings are part of the view from the Citadel. So having tall buildings/modern architecture just adds to the view (especially at night when the building lights are on).

I think that residential density should be maximized in the downtown area. More residents will lead to more commercial development. Parking requirements could be minimized by having parking located on the perimeter, more rapid transit and shared car ownership (http://carsharehfx.ca/).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

I don't think the potential shadow or wind effects of any development should be shrugged off though.

Sure. Like I said, this is why they do wind and shadow studies, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. However, lots of people like to speculate about whether or not a new building will create wind or shadow effects in the absence of real data (or in the presence of real data they choose to ignore). Gloria McCluskey for example did this with the building she torpedoed. That is not reasonable, since wind and shadow effects are not necessarily created by new buildings. Given that developers must pay for the studies, we should only be discussing the results of those studies, not speculating. I suspect that many people prefer to speculate because they have made up their minds and are not really interested in the truth.

And finally, how much density do people think we need downtown? You don't need skyscrapers to get density.

This is true but in the absence of problems like wind or shadow it is better to let developers build what they propose, or at least create a clear (and hopefully economically feasible) framework that allows developers to bring forward proposals that will be approved. Downtown Halifax has lost out on a lot of development because the city tends to screw around so much with developers. In the worst cases, like the Jazz condo fiasco, it feels like the city literally treats developers with contempt. And as you said, the regulations don't even tend to produce good results; the Salter developers proposed a better building originally with a reasonable looking dome on top that was scaled down to satisfy stupid rules.

I always wonder when people say "we don't need skyscrapers everywhere for density". Is this a real risk downtown? The biggest challenge right now seems to be to get any new buildings built. I think that downtown Halifax's current problems have far more to do with over-regulation than with a lack of development controls. The United Gulf site, for example, is one of available sites with no viewplanes, and already this 48 storey proposal is technically not permitted because of another stupid bylaw. Even if council were to rubber stamp every proposal at this point the outcome would be very conservative.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think that downtown Halifax's current problems have far more to do with over-regulation than with a lack of development controls.

Agree 100%. HRM by Design is a step in the right direction but still leaves a lot to be desired. Look at what got built on Spring Garden for the TD Bank building - poor streetscape.

I don't think Council is the source of developers getting pushed around. Some councillors could be considered anti-development, but I don't think that applies to council as a whole. Most developments that go before council get approved - they just take so long that the economics no longer make sense or the developer moved on to something else. The bigger problem seems to lie in the regulations, the process, and how staff interacts with developers. Maybe council shares some blame for not allocating more resources to get things moving, or providing better regulations, but it seems to be the beauracratic side that is the biggest issue. There is no good reason to take over two years on a development agreement.

[jasonashhh]

As a young youth I wouldn't mind seeing my city grow up with the bus strike happening shows as a little what traffic would be like going in and out the city makes us look a little BIG but if council don't get there heads on it will be more than a strike developers should just bring their projects to our downtown Dartmouth we're willing to grow this way over the bridge!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

I don't think Council is the source of developers getting pushed around. Some councillors could be considered anti-development, but I don't think that applies to council as a whole.

Let's see - Pro-development, Anti-development, or inconsistent:

Dist 1 - Steve Streatch PRO
Dist 2 - Barry Dalrymple PRO
Dist 3 - David Hendsbee INC
Dist 4 - Lorelei Nicoll INC
Dist 5 - Gloria McCluskey ANTI
Dist 6 - Darren Fisher PRO
Dist 7 - Bill Karsten PRO
Dist 8 - Jackie Barkhouse ANTI
Dist 9 - Jim Smith ANTI
Dist 10 - Mary Wile INC
Dist 11 - Jerry Blumenthal ANTI
Dist 12 - Dawn Sloane ANTI
Dist 13 - Sue Uteck PRO
Dist 14 - Jennifer Watts ANTI
Dist 15 - Russell Walker PRO
Dist 16 - Debbie Hum INC
Dist 17 - Linda Mosher PRO
Dist 18 - Stephen Adams PRO
Dist 19 - Brad Johns INC
Dist 20 - Bob Harvey INC
Dist 21 - Tim Outhit PRO
Dist 22 - Reg Rankin ANTI
Dist 23 - Peter Lund INC

I make it 9 pro, 7 anti, and the rest are swing votes. Far from a pro-development council. Add in the micromanagement of detail things during development agreement approvals by the likes of Sloane and it is an arduous process with no guarantee of success.

[RyeJay]

Aside from the height debate, I wonder how likely is it that United Gulf will be granted an extension for the Twisted Sisters?

[halifaxboyns]

I guess my biggest problem is this is a purely a spot zoning and from a planning perspective (having dealt with many) I get very uncomfortable about them. Just because this application may have some flaws though doesn't mean I wouldn't support others - I ranted about this in the fenwick thread, I'll leave it simply to amendments this big (in terms of removing the rampart requirements and setting a whole new tone for DT) should be done through a major planning exercise like the regional centre LUB so that no just UG can benefit, but many others too (like the Fenwick area or the Cogswell Lands).

Add to this my lack of faith in the developer and I don't see this going very far, but time will tell.

As to getting an extension on the DA - I suspect you will see another report come along (if this is shot down) requesting the extension.

[Empire]

Heard on the radio that this proposal is now one tower. Just a radio rumour.

[RyeJay]

Another change?

If the proposal is just one tower this could mean a very significant design change in order to fill more of the building's available envelop within height limits.

I would find it amusing, but not suprising, if United Gulf simply dropped a tower, leaving the remaining one as is...

[cormiermax]

With those two balls on either side

[RyeJay]

Of course. With well-trimmed landscaping.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Heard on the radio that this proposal is now one tower. Just a radio rumour.

I'd prefer if the developer scaled it back so it could be quickly approved and built.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

Heard on the radio that this proposal is now one tower. Just a radio rumour.

I think that the developer could have the same number of units in one shorter building and still save cost. It would have to be longer (fill in the gap between buildings), but it would allow more windows and views of the harbour by having a long, narrow building.

[kph06]

I am surprised, council is sounding like they are in favor of pushing this forward. Watts is now up a second time and is clearly furious that the public might get their opinion on this one. She was second to speak after Sloane (also against), so to hear many councilors in favor, she must have been about to lose her mind. The vote should be soon.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kph06

I am surprised, council is sounding like they are in favor of pushing this forward. Watts is now up a second time and is clearly furious that the public might get their opinion on this one. She was second to speak after Sloane (also against), so to hear many councilors in favor, she must have been about to lose her mind. The vote should be soon.

Definitely a side benefit of a proposal like this.

Some people like to talk about the ramparts bylaw as if it were some fundamental law of the universe, but I wonder how much support it really has. I think many people would see the viewplanes themselves as a reasonable compromise since they only impose restrictions on particular areas in exchange for preserving specific public views. The costs/benefits for the ramparts bylaw make less sense -- really it is just a pretext for banning tall buildings.

[Northend Nerd]

The staff recommendation was defeated and they voted to move to public consultation for the development. Good news!

[halifaxboyns]

Wow, I'm surprised by this...I didn't think it would go forward.

[kph06]

Sloane made a comment that by allowing this proposal to go further it would defeat the hours of consultation during HRM by Design -quite a hypocritical comment from her, considering the way she altered the Barrington South Heritage District heights to her own delight. She needs to go.

McCluskey also commented that she wished she voted in favor of the original Twisted Sisters, and that she had gotten criticism on not allowing democracy take its course recently (the Prince Albert). I think she only took this stance because its not in her district, if she really wanted to make amends on her decision she should put forward a motion to send the Prince Albert back to public consultation.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I think it does set precedent and more a applications like this might come up. Might this be a change in public opinion on heights? I am sure the Pacey's are gearing up for WWIII, I can't wait to hear their arguments at the meetings.

[q12]

Excellant news! Public opinion seems to be strongly in favor of this.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by kph06

Sloane made a comment that by allowing this proposal to go further it would defeat the hours of consultation during HRM by Design -quite a hypocritical comment from her, considering the way she altered the Barrington South Heritage District heights to her own delight. She needs to go.

McCluskey also commented that she wished she voted in favor of the original Twisted Sisters, and that she had gotten criticism on not allowing democracy take its course recently (the Prince Albert). I think she only took this stance because its not in her district, if she really wanted to make amends on her decision she should put forward a motion to send the Prince Albert back to public consultation.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I think it does set precedent and more a applications like this might come up. Might this be a change in public opinion on heights? I am sure the Pacey's are gearing up for WWIII, I can't wait to hear their arguments at the meetings.

Oh if I could be a fly on the wall at that PIM - should be interesting. World War III is an understatement.

While I maintain that a major planning exercise should be done instead of a spot zoning - if this ends up being approved, this could create the need for such an exercise or remove things like the rampart heights rule in the end. It would just be the long and bumpy way of getting to it.

As to Councillor Sloane's comment - I don't know if I agree with that. Times have changes since HbD was approved and public opinion may have changed. So maybe a review is appropriate?