[Halifax] St. Patrick's Alexandra | ? m | ? fl | Proposed

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just like Bloomfield, there is news today on this, and none of it is good:

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/the-proj...hold-1.6405394

So the loud-mouthed locals want welfare housing as long as it is not more than 4-6 storeys. Certainly they do not want anything "nice" that might rent for something close to what other new developments around there are seeing. And of course they have no idea what the things they want actually cost or whether it makes sense for anyone to try doing it. HRM is far from blameless here too, with the absurd size/height restrictions they have placed arbitrarily on the site. Maybe Joe M. should just put a "For Sale: As-Is/Where-Is $20 million OBO" sign on the lot and walk away.

"At the end of the day, the city, ideologically, does not seem like it has an interest in maximizing housing."

Obviously!

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by kzt79

"At the end of the day, the city, ideologically, does not seem like it has an interest in maximizing housing."

Obviously!

I don't think that's really the case at all. There are lots of situations around the city (e.g. the Future Growth Nodes like Mic Mac Mall and West End Mall) where HRM is absolutely pushing housing to the max (and maybe beyond?).

Ideologically, what HRM is doing is trying to build a culture of sticking to the rules. For way too many years everything here was done on a one-off basis, and it dragged everything to a halt. I see HRM trying to push an overall system where the rules are reasonably good, where people buy knowing the rules, and then build to those rules.

We can debate whether the rules for this site are truly "right", but ultimately I see a real hesitation to do anything about it because that fuels the idea that people can change the rules and risks undermining everything that has been done to get to a more predictable, faster planning system.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

We can debate whether the rules for this site are truly "right", but ultimately I see a real hesitation to do anything about it because that fuels the idea that people can change the rules and risks undermining everything that has been done to get to a more predictable, faster planning system.

A slavish devotion to not changing the rules for ideological reasons when everything else - the housing market, the demand curve for different types of developments over time, the cost of construction, the cost of money, etc etc changes every day - is pure ostrich thinking. The idea that planning rules must be cast in stone is one of the many follies that afflict the planning profession.

[Empire]

This article demonstrates how dysfunctional policies and the HRM planning mindset are creating stagnate landscapes. Prime real estate in the city centre should not be subjected to unattractive low slung buildings that occupy 100% of the lot.

The city is obsessed with creating a squat, low quality environment in prime areas. Cogswell, Centennial Pool, St. Pats. Alexandra are a few examples. Affordable units would be great to have in prime sites but this just does not get off the ground with truly affordable units. For affordable units to be workable in a new build in a prime area, the city / province should be prepared to provide substantial subsides to the developer. Never a mention of upgrading or creating multiple affordable units in a logical area like Mulgrave Park.

St. Pats Alexandra:
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/the-proj...hold-1.6405394

[Dmajackson]

Housing Accelerator Fund changes soundly shot down JONO Developments' requests for this site;

Request was for CEN-2 zoning with max height of 28 storeys.

• This site is located within the Brunswick Street proposed Heritage Conservation District, next to the St. George's Anglican Church / Round Church National Historic Site of Canada, and is identified as a Special Planning Area in the Centre Plan SMPS and LUB.
• Maitland Street is a narrow street, and the abutting Murray Warrington Park is a shadow protected site and the location of a community enterprise.
• Existing Policy framework in Centre Plan (IM-41) supports a development agreement option on this site for additional density subject to certain requirements. These requirements were developed after site specific consultation with the North End and African Nova Scotian community;
• Staff are not recommending zoning changes to the site.

Regional Centre Development Requests