Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
It's valid to question why a relatively vibrant and historic area is being torn down for redevelopment when there are so many underused sites around. I don't think that is something individual developers can fix though, or that development of the city should be put on hold. That would just push more development out to the suburbs and put more strain on infrastructure.
I don't agree that this is a pair of enormous developments that should be considered out of scale for the city. The city is growing rapidly now and most land is off limits for redevelopment. Halifax can't grow by 8,000-10,000 people per year AND have stable inner-city neighbourhoods with at most tiny boutique developments AND have affordable housing AND limit suburban sprawl. Something has to give, and the best and most feasible option right now is to allow taller buildings. The expanded tax base that these buildings bring in can be used to pay for things like affordable housing and heritage preservation.
Folks like Peggy Cameron tend to argue against whatever they don't like without talking about the (bad) trade-offs. That comment about old mixed-use areas being "up to 40% denser" is BS. This debate is about a particular block and these developments will create far more residential units than what exists there now. That's part of the reason why these buildings are triggering NIMBYism.
|
I've actually spoken to Cameron about issues like this, and she likes to cite the Stantec report from 2012 on population growth and peninsula development to argue that larger buildings aren't needed. That was a dodgy argument back then, but the city's recent population growth, and the much larger proportion of it that's begun accruing to the regional centre, has shot way up, pretty much invalidating the assumptions of the Stantec report.
She basically doesn't have a good answer as to how to accommodate the city's growth, just a lot of not-very-apt comparisons to other cities with denser historic development. I have no problem with her criticizing the current development paradigm, but if she can't propose feasible alternatives, I don't know what to say. She basically insists on mostly stable residential areas (she does seem fine with infill to some degree, and in-law suites, etc) but no significant change in building stock. And then she's advocated dor a six-storey maximum everywhere else. It's just not enough to house people.
Specific to this site, the argument that older neighbourhoods are denser doesn't hold here. This development will replace one very crappy 1980s-looking mid-rise apartment building, a fairly mediocre 1930s-looking building, and four historic houses. Of the four houses on the site, two will be preserved in-situ and one will be moved, so we'll end up losing only one historic house (the one right at the corner. The development proposal makes it sound as if this will be moved too, but I can't see it on the site plan or renderings.)
I actually think it's a great house, and would like to see it retained and restored. But ultimately, to build this entire project, we'll lose exactly one single good building. It seems like a pretty good heritage trade-off.
I've said it before, but my beef with this development has nothing to do with scale (this area is the most appropriate in the city for it) or heritage issues, but the ugly brown mish-mash of the towers. Especially contrasted with what's going up immediately to the north, it's pretty hideous. I'm hoping for a redesign, but not a scale-down.