General Updates and News

[egb]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Additionally to the FAR 10/40 story increase in CEN zones, they mention possibly additional height in FGNs.
I would love to see some FGNs designated for 150m/50 story maximums. North of Almon + Kempt road comes to mind.

Assuming this is all approved it'll be interesting to see how this shapes the eventual debate around what gets built as part of the Cogswell redevelopment. It'll seem increasing bizarre to adhere to the rampart limits when we're letting people build 40 story buildings all over the place.

They recently doubled the planned population of the new district so that may be a sign of the direction things are heading.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by egb

Assuming this is all approved it'll be interesting to see how this shapes the eventual debate around what gets built as part of the Cogswell redevelopment. It'll seem increasing bizarre to adhere to the rampart limits when we're letting people build 40 story buildings all over the place.

They recently doubled the planned population of the new district so that may be a sign of the direction things are heading.

According to the interactive map the city produced breaking down the proposed changes, the Cogswell area will be 40 storeys. I think the council meeting a few weeks ago talked about making the height limit 120 metres, but this would be higher than that.

[egb]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

According to the interactive map the city produced breaking down the proposed changes, the Cogswell area will be 40 storeys. I think the council meeting a few weeks ago talked about making the height limit 120 metres, but this would be higher than that.

The max stories change will get a lot of attention (justifiably) but the floor area ratio for the 40 story sites is only increasing from 8 to 10. For large sites developers will be able to go very tall but for smaller lots it'll be tougher. You saw this at the corner of Gottingen and Cogswell where everyone thought the building is really ugly but I think it was kind of a function of the FAR limits.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

According to the interactive map the city produced breaking down the proposed changes, the Cogswell area will be 40 storeys. I think the council meeting a few weeks ago talked about making the height limit 120 metres, but this would be higher than that.

The Coswell Zone is left as blank grey on the interactive map. The closest parcel shown as CEN-2 is the current Trade Mart lot, which is just west of Cogswell district. I'm a bit surprised they didn't color it blue and label it CDD-2

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

The Coswell Zone is left as blank grey on the interactive map. The closest parcel shown as CEN-2 is the current Trade Mart lot, which is just west of Cogswell district. I'm a bit surprised they didn't color it blue and label it CDD-2

Ah, you’re right, I looked at the map wrong. Looking back at council’s November docs, they are looking at ramparts max here, which would be 80-96 metres, depending on the specific site.

[Drybrain]

Is there anywhere that gives an accounting of how many extra units or people these changes are estimated to make room for? Obviously it's not at the level of Vancouver's massive changes, but it appears pretty significant. I still wouldn't expect much change in the ER zones, or even ER-3. Is it really so worthwhile to demolish a SFH just to build a four-unit building that we'll see that happening en masse? I sort of doubt it.

It looks pretty good to me. Having said that, my inner NIMBY pops up a bit when looking at the proposed upzoning to higher-order residential near Dal, specifically the two blocks between Robie and Henry, above South Street. A number of highly visible and unusually well-maintained Victorians in that area that merit preservation, IMO. As it stands, the area just to the south of here is slated to be protected by the proposed Oakland Road heritage district, but the heritage value of this slightly farther north is much higher, I think. I'd rather see those couple of blocks protected, and the upzoning shifted slightly south, along Robie down to Belmont, and in the couple of blocks nehind there, which are extremely low density as it stands. If the HR zone was shifted down there, there'd be a slight density gain from upzoning the less-dense area, and there'd be no meaningful heritage impact at all. And it would still be close enough to the university to count easily as university-adjacent density.

I guess that's a minor quibble in the scheme of things; I just hate to see these kinds of buildings lost when there are other opportunities for density--I think there's a mentality that these are some near-infinite resource, but when you start counting up streetscapes like this, they're not actually that common.

[Keith P.]

It looks to me like HRM has pivoted 180 degrees from having very stringent and prescriptive planning rules for much of the established residential parts of the city to allowing 7-storey boxes pretty much everywhere, existing neighborhood character be damned. Notwithstanding the reality that more housing is needed, this feels very much like an abdication and overreaction. There are currently very pleasant, well-established neighborhoods in many of the areas affected which could significantly lose what makes them attractive under these loose rules. Have the planners just thrown up their hands?

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It looks to me like HRM has pivoted 180 degrees from having very stringent and prescriptive planning rules for much of the established residential parts of the city to allowing 7-storey boxes pretty much everywhere, existing neighborhood character be damned. Notwithstanding the reality that more housing is needed, this feels very much like an abdication and overreaction. There are currently very pleasant, well-established neighborhoods in many of the areas affected which could significantly lose what makes them attractive under these loose rules. Have the planners just thrown up their hands?

I believe the changes are a result of the federal money which came with conditions.
If governments do not address the issue of excessive immigration the voters will have their say at the next election, as they have in Holland late last year. I have yet to meet a person under 35 who will vote for Trudeau.

[Empire]

The interactive map seems flawed to me. How would 40 storeys be reasonable on Faulkland or Creighton St. and six storeys the max on the Piercey Lands? Back to the drawing board. The higher limits should be on compatible parcels not narrow residential streets. This height limit will encourage the demolition of heritage houses when it could be avoided by placing higher limits in the CORRECT location. Wyse Rd. should be more than 9 storeys near Albro Lake Rd.

Interactive map: click the layer icon and then the Proposed max height and storeys tab
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478acf8709f54aa9b1ba2f356b30752b

Creighton St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6518031,...6thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Faulkland St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6510265,...Iyy2vlaeQBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=Empire;10125515]The interactive map seems flawed to me. How would 40 storeys be reasonable on Faulkland or Creighton St. and six storeys the max on the Piercey Lands? Back to the drawing board. The higher limits should be on compatible parcels not narrow residential streets. This height limit will encourage the demolition of heritage houses when it could be avoided by placing higher limits in the CORRECT location. Wyse Rd. should be more than 9 storeys near Albro Lake Rd.

Don't assume the federal government knows what it is doing re housing. They are desperate and none of the housing they are proposing/imposing will be available before the next election.

[teddifax]

I can't see where the 40 stories are permitted? What am I not seeing?

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I can't see where the 40 stories are permitted? What am I not seeing?

The dark burgundy areas are 40 stories.

[Empire]

Seems very odd that a vast area that has perhaps the most potential in HRM for very high density is limited to approx. 6 storeys. Kempt Rd through Commission St. is crying for Richmond Yard type developments.

Massive lost opportunity.

Livingston looking west:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6599102,...6thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Commission St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6626674,...EBUlBDOtdWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

The interactive map seems flawed to me. How would 40 storeys be reasonable on Faulkland or Creighton St. and six storeys the max on the Piercey Lands? Back to the drawing board. The higher limits should be on compatible parcels not narrow residential streets. This height limit will encourage the demolition of heritage houses when it could be avoided by placing higher limits in the CORRECT location. Wyse Rd. should be more than 9 storeys near Albro Lake Rd.

The Piercey's site is zoned for 20 metres now, but it's also listed as a "comprehensive development district." Basically, that low-rise zoning is temporary, and this means the city will undertake planning for something big here--I would expect in the long run something bigger than Richmond Yards.

Not sure about the houses on Creighton and Falkland, but that area falls under a proposed heritage district, and the city is proposing to carve heritage districts out of the upzoning temporarily, so my thinking is hopefully those blocks are exempt.

[Jreeb]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is there anywhere that gives an accounting of how many extra units or people these changes are estimated to make room for? Obviously it's not at the level of Vancouver's massive changes, but it appears pretty significant. I still wouldn't expect much change in the ER zones, or even ER-3. Is it really so worthwhile to demolish a SFH just to build a four-unit building that we'll see that happening en masse? I sort of doubt it.

With the proposed ER-3 changes they are eliminating bedroom/unit counts and adding a height limit of 12 m. The maximum lot coverage is also increasing to 50-60% for multi-res uses depending on the lot size.

My concern is that we are going to start seeing some ugly vinyl-siding four-storey boxes pop up around the city in unexpected places. I'm all for the increased density but I have a feeling some developers may not care for the aesthetic of a neighbourhood and we are going to see some interesting looking builds squeeze as many bachelor units into a build as possible. That being said, these proposed changes are not final so who knows what the final approved changes will look like.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree. I've always liked the look of that house, in that location. Having it remain there would also provide a buffer for the historic church if it were only the other buildings that were to be razed.

Built in 1894
https://halifax.citynews.ca/2018/05/07/r...emains-in-downtown-dartmouth-916574/amp/

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Jreeb

With the proposed ER-3 changes they are eliminating bedroom/unit counts and adding a height limit of 12 m. The maximum lot coverage is also increasing to 50-60% for multi-res uses depending on the lot size.

My concern is that we are going to start seeing some ugly vinyl-siding four-storey boxes pop up around the city in unexpected places. I'm all for the increased density but I have a feeling some developers may not care for the aesthetic of a neighbourhood and we are going to see some interesting looking builds squeeze as many bachelor units into a build as possible. That being said, these proposed changes are not final so who knows what the final approved changes will look like.

Developers still try to build to what the market dictates. One of the intentions to these changes is to reduce the costs for them to address the market demand, i.e., build more missing middle housing, including two and two-plus units.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Empire

The interactive map seems flawed to me. How would 40 storeys be reasonable on Faulkland or Creighton St. and six storeys the max on the Piercey Lands? Back to the drawing board. The higher limits should be on compatible parcels not narrow residential streets. This height limit will encourage the demolition of heritage houses when it could be avoided by placing higher limits in the CORRECT location. Wyse Rd. should be more than 9 storeys near Albro Lake Rd.

Interactive map: click the layer icon and then the Proposed max height and storeys tab
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478acf8709f54aa9b1ba2f356b30752b

Creighton St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6518031,...6thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Faulkland St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6510265,...Iyy2vlaeQBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Having spent the final several years of my last job caught up in Wyse Road developments, the step-down seems unnecessary. But then, so did the redevelopment of the roadwork to prioritize the tiny portion of the population that cycles instead of drives or uses transit along Wyse.

And larger-scale developments have already eaten away at the single-family homes between Wyse / Albro / Victoria. And respect aside to the lovely Nena's breakfast house, the complex anchoring the corner is dire and the lot should be redeveloped.

[teddifax]

Interesting the Cogswell District and Piercey lands aren't shown in the high density zones yet.... I am glad they will be allowing 40 stories, but..... maybe throw in a signature tower or two.... of even higher.... one can dream. I wish the legend would show permitted height or am I missing somewhere that is shown?

[terrynorthend]

Exactly. This is one of the FGNs. Not sure why they use the language FGN and CDD interchangeably, but from the Halifax HAF website:

"Increase max. height to 40 storeys and max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 10 in most Centre (CEN) Zones, with potential for additional height in Future Growth Nodes (see interactive map)"

So it will be 40 storeys/10.0 FAR at least with potential for even more height here.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The Piercey's site is zoned for 20 metres now, but it's also listed as a "comprehensive development district." Basically, that low-rise zoning is temporary, and this means the city will undertake planning for something big here--I would expect in the long run something bigger than Richmond Yards.

Not sure about the houses on Creighton and Falkland, but that area falls under a proposed heritage district, and the city is proposing to carve heritage districts out of the upzoning temporarily, so my thinking is hopefully those blocks are exempt.