[Halifax] Navy Lane Condos (2183 Gottingen) | 24 m | 8 fl | U/C

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

This answer does not satisfy me, nor make me confident it is the right direction. I feel that this is a "pass the buck" sort of answer, that makes the city look clean if this blows up in peoples faces.

However if it is provincial funding that is putting this up, well we can't really knock too hard. Its hard enough to get adiquate provincial funding.

This project still leaves me with the feeling that the low income are still being lumped into one building, as many as they can without much consideration to other projects in other parts of the world where they concentrated low income.

Agreed. HRM just wants to say they support affordable housing. But it's more complex than that. 70/30 split on market/non-market housing is generally the standard, with evidence to show that more is counter-productive. It seems like NSHT negotiated a bad deal with the Province, but HRM seems fine with pretending its ok or is ready to blame them if it fails.This is not a sound model for affordable housing.

Will HRM support the Province if they want to also build 85% studios at Bloomfield (not that they have the power to stop them). And what about St. Pat's Alexandra? If a developer buys the land and wants 85% studios there, how can you say no. Gottingen is making a slow, but healthy transition and Council seems ok disrupting that. If NSHT sells the DA - can HRM do anything to ensure that the units are subsidized? If not, why did they grant exceptions to the plan on the basis of affordability, if there is no guarantee that the units will be subsidized? I'm not even necessarily against this project, but from a process and fair planning perspective, this whole thing is strange.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If we are talking about the same book - "The Spirit of Africville" by Clairmont, Saunders and the Africville Genealogical Society, a.k.a. Irv Carvery - it is a hugely romanticized, largely fictional tale of what the place was supposed to be like. One of the few useful facts is that Pa Carvery was the last holdout to accept the city offer and that his house was removed a few days later. That left young Irv Carvery bitter and he never gave it up. But even considering it was published 25 years ago the book foretold what his real objective was. From the book:



That, written in 1989, laid out Irv's intentions.

Also, this is hardly the kind of "factual" statement one expects to find in a history book:




Hardly an objective text of history. But Irv's threats eventually came true. The book was published with taxpayer dollars, the unused park was built with taxpayer dollars, the unused church was built with taxpayer dollars, and the appeasement payments were made with taxpayer dollars. That is the real shame.

Keith, the book you refer to is about 22 years old, the book I referred to is 40 years old
http://www.mcnallyrobinson.com/9780887809255/donald-clairmont/spirit-africville published in 2010, originally published in 1992 'long out of print'

http://www.cspi.org/books/africville originally published in 1974, probably bought mine in 1978
there may be some similar content, but the original obviously focused on the historical data, in significant detail, using government documents.

[Drybrain]

Anyone care to weight in on this piece in The Coast by the manager of Bus Stop Theatre and tell me if they feel it's as bizarre and ridiculous as I do?

She says the project will ruin the development potential of the backlot behind the theatre, and therefore an important source of potential revenue for the theatre, threatening its viability. She also says some stuff I don't even comprehend at the end about the project "interfering with the existing market" and screwing up the neighbourhood, and some straight-up nonsense about not being able to plant seeds due to construction debris.

To me it sounds like she's using all this as a cover because she's afraid of seeing her backyard walled in, which currently is a sort of massive garden/greenhouse plaything for the theatre and affiliated folks.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyone care to weight in on this piece in The Coast by the manager of Bus Stop Theatre and tell me if they feel it's as bizarre and ridiculous as I do?

She says the project will ruin the development potential of the backlot behind the theatre, and therefore an important source of potential revenue for the theatre, threatening its viability. She also says some stuff I don't even comprehend at the end about the project "interfering with the existing market" and screwing up the neighbourhood, and some straight-up nonsense about not being able to plant seeds due to construction debris.

To me it sounds like she's using all this as a cover because she's afraid of seeing her backyard walled in, which currently is a sort of massive garden/greenhouse plaything for the theatre and affiliated folks.

"Snow Load studies"??!! Good grief. After wind and shadow studies, I thought I had seen the apex of stupidity, but the NIMBYs are creative with their obstructionism.

I think the whole article is a big, fat, load of baloney.

This has nothing to do with her theatre. All she's trying to do, is preserve her little backyard garden and pond because if the new building is built as planned, it'll cast a shadow across her garden.

The "future development" of the backyard is a trumped up excuse to interfere 17 feet into the property owned by someone else, and to be developed by the Housing Trust, in order to save her garden.

Kudos to her for starting the theatre, but let's be honest-- this has to do with the "seeds" she wants to plant. Period.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyone care to weight in on this piece in The Coast by the manager of Bus Stop Theatre and tell me if they feel it's as bizarre and ridiculous as I do?

She says the project will ruin the development potential of the backlot behind the theatre, and therefore an important source of potential revenue for the theatre, threatening its viability. She also says some stuff I don't even comprehend at the end about the project "interfering with the existing market" and screwing up the neighbourhood, and some straight-up nonsense about not being able to plant seeds due to construction debris.

To me it sounds like she's using all this as a cover because she's afraid of seeing her backyard walled in, which currently is a sort of massive garden/greenhouse plaything for the theatre and affiliated folks.

She brought these points up at the public hearing at while I usually sympathise with non-profits I think this is not worthy of changing the project.

Under the standard C-2 zoning a building can occupy 100% of the lot, with no set or step-backs until the height limit is reached. The proposed building does fill the lot and it does step back after 30' which is what would be allowed under normal circumstances. The only way the 10' would be impact her lot is if she builds above the height limit which would require a MPS/LUB amendment and development agreement which she has no interest in getting.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

She brought these points up at the public hearing at while I usually sympathise with non-profits I think this is not worthy of changing the project.

Under the standard C-2 zoning a building can occupy 100% of the lot, with no set or step-backs until the height limit is reached. The proposed building does fill the lot and it does step back after 30' which is what would be allowed under normal circumstances. The only way the 10' would be impact her lot is if she builds above the height limit which would require a MPS/LUB amendment and development agreement which she has no interest in getting.

I'm just confused by her statement in the comments below the article that she has some sort of exemption to build north-south facing units if she were to (hypothetically) develop that lot some day. Wouldn't that essentially require that the adjacent north and south lots remain undeveloped forever, lest her north-south units be boxed in?

Maybe I need some visual aids here. Sorry to harp on it, I just think this is a really weird but fascinating objection and I'm trying to understand it.

[JET]

using Google street and standing looking at the rear of the site, what a mess it is now, can't imagine any garden back there, maybe in deck pots.

[Waye Mason]

FYI Snow load studies are real, and if you build higher next to someone you have to compensate them if they need to re-engineer their roof. Neptune paid for snow load upgrades on the Khyber for example. Discovery/Zellers will pay snow load on green lantern.

But I suspect that snow load comes later in this process and my understanding is this is a civil matter, between property owners.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyone care to weight in on this piece in The Coast by the manager of Bus Stop Theatre and tell me if they feel it's as bizarre and ridiculous as I do?

She says the project will ruin the development potential of the backlot behind the theatre, and therefore an important source of potential revenue for the theatre, threatening its viability. She also says some stuff I don't even comprehend at the end about the project "interfering with the existing market" and screwing up the neighbourhood, and some straight-up nonsense about not being able to plant seeds due to construction debris.

To me it sounds like she's using all this as a cover because she's afraid of seeing her backyard walled in, which currently is a sort of massive garden/greenhouse plaything for the theatre and affiliated folks.

I don't know if it's that, or if it is just another of the people in that neighborhood who want to institutionalize the existing poverty, like the good Rev. Britten. They don't want the neighborhood cleaned up and developed because they like the hand-to-mouth nature of the place currently.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Under the standard C-2 zoning a building can occupy 100% of the lot, with no set or step-backs until the height limit is reached. The proposed building does fill the lot and it does step back after 30' which is what would be allowed under normal circumstances. The only way the 10' would be impact her lot is if she builds above the height limit which would require a MPS/LUB amendment and development agreement which she has no interest in getting.

Isn't her building also built up to the lot line on three sides? In areas like this I think you're basically asking for a subsidy from your neighbours when you ask for setbacks; property owners could accomplish the same thing by creating their own setback on their own land, but for some reason this solution is never discussed...

Predictably, this project is being appealed to the NSUARB. Bev Miller's apparently on the list of appellants too. Branching out from the South End I guess. It's a good thing Halifax has so many community activists fighting the good fight to prevent too much affordable housing from going up.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't her building also built up to the lot line on three sides? In areas like this I think you're basically asking for a subsidy from your neighbours when you ask for setbacks; property owners could accomplish the same thing by creating their own setback on their own land, but for some reason this solution is never discussed...

Predictably, this project is being appealed to the NSUARB. Bev Miller's apparently on the list of appellants too. Branching out from the South End I guess. It's a good thing Halifax has so many community activists fighting the good fight to prevent too much affordable housing from going up.

Oh, FFS.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by someone123

Predictably, this project is being appealed to the NSUARB. Bev Miller's apparently on the list of appellants too. Branching out from the South End I guess. It's a good thing Halifax has so many community activists fighting the good fight to prevent too much affordable housing from going up.

Mrs. Miller lives next to this project and after she spoke at the public hearing I overheard them discussing how they could appeal the project so this was no surprise.

The other appealants are the Bus Stop Theatre owner and a nearby developer (Glubes Lofts IIRC).

[portapetey]

Appeal launched. Here we go again:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1221090-green-light-for-projects-appealed

[ILoveHalifax]

I would think that some people who are so anti city would be much happier moving to Sherbrooke Village.
But then again some people seem to enjoy being against everything. If they could not protest, they would have nothing to do.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't her building also built up to the lot line on three sides? In areas like this I think you're basically asking for a subsidy from your neighbours when you ask for setbacks; property owners could accomplish the same thing by creating their own setback on their own land, but for some reason this solution is never discussed...

Predictably, this project is being appealed to the NSUARB. Bev Miller's apparently on the list of appellants too. Branching out from the South End I guess. It's a good thing Halifax has so many community activists fighting the good fight to prevent too much affordable housing from going up.

Just to be clear - there is nothing that requires this to be affordable. The DA can be sold and there is no requirement for a percentage to be affordable. Even the existing owner can drop the affordable component if they pay back the Province

[JET]

let's hope it can be settled quickly, it would be a very good addition to the area, or any area, really.

[curnhalio]

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder if these people are speaking in code. Like "the area" refers to not an all-encompassing neighbourhood, but just THAT block or the two or three properties adjacent on either side. The fact that there are taller buildings within 200m of the sites is irrelevant because there are no tall buildings right on that exact portion of that exact block. They will be 8 and 11 stories looking up from Maitland, which will look garish next to those heritage gravel pits...

I wish developers could say that if you don't allow us to build this, then the property will remain an empty lot for an indefinite period. That's your alternative.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

I wish developers could say that if you don't allow us to build this, then the property will remain an empty lot for an indefinite period. That's your alternative.

I think the folks appealing this would actually be okay with that.

The only credible statement from this group, as far as I can tell, is that it would be better for the buildings to contain more two- and three-bedroom units.

And to be fair, it is considerably larger than most of the street's built environment (there are big towers nearby, but let's be honest: They're awful). Having said that, it's pretty sensitive to the street, especially with the alterations made specificial in response to community concerns.

But those reasons alone are obviously not why they're launching an appeal. If you look at Clare Waque's Facebook page, she goes into a laundry list of complaints ranging from construction noise affecting theatre performances (I imagine construction will be in the daytime, so probably a non-issue?) to her own development potential to the impact on her garden. There's also a lot of rhetoric about greedy capitalists and so on. It's pretty ridiculous.

[halifaxboyns]

I have to agree with Drybrain - these folks would be happier with a vacant lot than any development; which is sad.

This is going to keep happening until we finally get the Regional Centre Plan done...we can only hope it gets done sooner rather than later. If the theatre owner thinks these developments are 'too tall' - wait until the whole street gets rezoned.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder if these people are speaking in code. Like "the area" refers to not an all-encompassing neighbourhood, but just THAT block or the two or three properties adjacent on either side. The fact that there are taller buildings within 200m of the sites is irrelevant because there are no tall buildings right on that exact portion of that exact block. They will be 8 and 11 stories looking up from Maitland, which will look garish next to those heritage gravel pits...

I wish developers could say that if you don't allow us to build this, then the property will remain an empty lot for an indefinite period. That's your alternative.

A Sobey subsidiary has left their approved development at Cogswell in the drawer for 25 years.
United Gulf didn't proceed with their development on the Tex Park site.
United Gulf didn't proceed with their agreement with the Sisters of Charity property at the Mount.
Medjuck didn't proceed with his project on the waterfront and WDC took back the land.
The 300 unit project next to Greenvale Lofts in downtown Dartmouth is in limbo and the developer has been trying to sell the land for the past 6 months.
A lot of developers don't proceed with their approved projects - the banks tighten credit or the economy slows or the market is not ready or another developer with deeper pockets seizes an opportunity and takes the risk.
St Lawrence is not yet registered as a condominium and that situation when added to other projects which aren't selling/renting tells you all you need to know about the metro market - not dead, just resting.