The Centre Plan (Urban Core Regional Plan) - Page 9

OldDartmouthMark · #**161** Posted **Mar 2, 2018, 5:38 PM**

As much as we like to express derision towards those who oppose apartment/condo buildings in their backyard, I can see their point even if I don't agree that they should have absolute power to control what is or isn't built in their neighborhood.

My personal experience is having an apartment building built bordering our backyard in my childhood house in the 1970s. Previously the lot bordering the rear of our lot was a large house with a good sized property attached. This gave our backyard a really open and private feel, despite the fact that our yard was somewhat small, and provided our yard with lots of sunlight from the south. This all helped to make it a great space to be in and aided such activities as gardening, which was a hobby of my mother.

One day we noticed the house being torn down, and then an apartment building was erected along that south line about 10 feet back from the fence line. My family never protested or lobbied the government, etc., as that wasn't the norm back then - we just accepted that it was something we couldn't change.

The effect on our home and yard was that any feeling of privacy was now gone as we suddenly had a dozen or so windows peering down on our yard, most of the sunny areas had now turned to shade, which affected enjoyment and gardening (and hence, enjoyment), and an unexpected effect was people now using our yard as a shortcut by cutting through the parking lot of the building, hopping the fence to our yard, and walking through the garden and up the driveway. I have no idea on what effect it had on property values, but in the least it would have made it harder to sell.

Net result is that the building really negatively affected our enjoyment of the property, which my parents had put their whole life into buying and maintaining.

Not asking anybody to shed tears, or even be remotely empathetic, but just want to give you some perspective as to why some "NIMBY"s are being NIMBYs. It's all well and good to say that it will only affect a few people, but if you're the person it affects, and you've spent your whole life paying a mortgage and keeping up the property, it doesn't feel very good. Probably less-good than it feels for a skyscraper enthusiast not getting to see more tall buildings put up in the middle of single family residential.

Disclaimer: The above comment is not meant to express any negative feelings towards adding density to existing neighborhoods, as I feel it is necessary as the city grows. It is only meant to add perspective to the topic.

Drybrain · #**162** Posted **Mar 3, 2018, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As much as we like to express derision towards those who oppose apartment/condo buildings in their backyard, I can see their point even if I don't agree that they should have absolute power to control what is or isn't built in their neighborhood.

...

The effect on our home and yard was that any feeling of privacy was now gone as we suddenly had a dozen or so windows peering down on our yard, most of the sunny areas had now turned to shade, which affected enjoyment and gardening (and hence, enjoyment), and an unexpected effect was people now using our yard as a shortcut by cutting through the parking lot of the building, hopping the fence to our yard, and walking through the garden and up the driveway. I have no idea on what effect it had on property values, but in the least it would have made it harder to sell.

Net result is that the building really negatively affected our enjoyment of the property, which my parents had put their whole life into buying and maintaining.

Very valid points.

A key difference between then and now is that there's greater attention paid to the transition between shorter and taller buildings, so in essence, even if an area is zoned for 26-metre buildings, that doesn't mean the whole lot can be built to 26 metres. It depends what's next door. The other, related factor, is building design. In the past, you might have a concrete slab right next to a two-storey house, whereas today there would be a range of design requirements to mitigate the effects.

Ultimately, someone is going to have to live with a taller building next door they might not like, but ideally it will be a mid-rise rather than a tower, and better designed to minimize negative effects. Then the towers can be adjacent to the mid-rises, etc...

Querce · #**163** Posted **May 10, 2018, 3:24 AM**

Anyone have any comments relating to or about the independent review?

https://www.facebook.com/AtlanticLiv...2861844529439/

http://udins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2...ew_May2018.pdf

Keith P. · #**164** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 8:45 PM**

Another bump in the road for this ill-advised plan. Or maybe reality has finally set in for its architect.

https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2018...t-rethink.html

Lots of turmoil within HRM Planning it seems, first Bjerke gets fired and now this.

someone123 · #**165** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 9:53 PM**

How long has the process gone on for now?

The independent review seems vague but it has one good point about height and density numbers seemingly coming out of thin air. In Halifax it feels almost as if height is viewed as a kind of indulgence and proxy for private profit.

In reality there are a bunch of constraints that should be satisfied. One constraint is that for neighbourhoods to be walkable they need a certain density of services, and for those services to survive in a market economy this means having adequate patrons and income. This gives us a lower bound on how much density is needed.

Once you look at household sizes and how much land is actually available then the building heights fall out of that.

Many areas in the Centre Plan are too conservative or are based around the flawed assumption that multi-block stretches should be razed and rebuilt at slightly higher density. Instead there should be fine-grained infill on a portion of the land, and that requires permitting higher densities for new construction projects.

OldDartmouthMark · #**166** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

How long has the process gone on for now?

The independent review seems vague but it has one good point about height and density numbers seemingly coming out of thin air. In Halifax it feels almost as if height is viewed as a kind of indulgence and proxy for private profit.

In reality there are a bunch of constraints that should be satisfied. One constraint is that for neighbourhoods to be walkable they need a certain density of services, and for those services to survive in a market economy this means having adequate patrons and income. This gives us a lower bound on how much density is needed.

Once you look at household sizes and how much land is actually available then the building heights fall out of that.

Many areas in the Centre Plan are too conservative or are based around the flawed assumption that multi-block stretches should be razed and rebuilt at slightly higher density. Instead there should be fine-grained infill on a portion of the land, and that requires permitting higher densities for new construction projects.

I've often thought that someone123 should move back to Halifax and run for council. This is one of those times.

Keith P. · #**167** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've often thought that someone123 should move back to Halifax and run for council. This is one of those times.

I agree he is usually sensible and that is a much-needed quality at Council but I wonder if he is an aberration among planners. The planners and wannabe planners we have on Council along with what seems like most members of HRM's planning bureaucracy generally do not sound or act like he does. Perhaps he is the exception to what seems to be the rule in that profession.

someone123 · #**168** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I agree he is usually sensible and that is a much-needed quality at Council but I wonder if he is an aberration among planners. The planners and wannabe planners we have on Council along with what seems like most members of HRM's planning bureaucracy generally do not sound or act like he does. Perhaps he is the exception to what seems to be the rule in that profession.

I'm not an urban planner. It's just something that interests me.

I tend to have reservations about the profession too. There are some positive aspects but it seems very hand-wavy (non-technical or scientific) and prone to groupthink. Planners are in a tough situation because their job is so political. "Good planning" as far as job security goes often boils down to telling people what they want to hear.

someone123 · #**169** Posted **Nov 25, 2018, 7:16 PM**

Somewhat relevant:

Source

Querce · #**170** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 6:11 PM**

The final draft of the Centre Plan Package A has been released:

https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/boa...sory-committee

Keith P. · #**171** Posted **Apr 5, 2019, 7:54 PM**

A complete and utter disaster. Urban planners run amok. Micromanagement on a grand scale. What a waste this thing is, I'd love an accurate accounting of how much money we taxpayers wasted on this.

The most interesting thing is the makeup of the committee. The worst councillors from a planning standpoint are leading this charge, including the usual suspects Mason, Austin, Cleary and Zurawski. Nobody with a lick of sense is included. The report and proposal is dubiously based upon floor area ratio as its magic bullet, but then neuters it by also adding ridiculously low maximum heights to buildings. Jeezus. Also buried in there is that they have thrown up their hands entirely on the "affordable housing" business, and have also taken the community councils out of the approval process by bringing it back to the full council.

This thing is shaping up to be another HRM debacle.

Querce · #**172** Posted **Apr 6, 2019, 8:27 PM**

A couple of things I thought were interesting

The plan now aims for 40% of the growth to be in the regional centre, rather than the 25% it was in the last draft

Quote:

Streetwalls shall be divided into distinct sections no less than 0.3 metres in width and not exceeding 8 metres in width, from the ground floor to the top of the streetwall, with each section differentiated by using at least two of the following (Diagram 9): (a) colour(s); (b) material(s); or (c) projections and recesses not less than 0.15 metres in depth.

So I guess hoping to stop the block long walls of glass

Any dwelling containing up to 4 housing units no longer requires any parking spaces, and there are maximum parking limits for downtown and centre zones

Public washrooms and public drinking fountains still aren't considered a public benefit for bonus zoning

OldDartmouthMark · #**173** Posted **Apr 11, 2019, 9:20 PM**

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...imit-1.5093667

Quote:

Buildings as high as 27 storeys will be allowed in parts of downtown Halifax and Dartmouth if the latest version of the Centre Plan is approved.

Planners have been working on new development rules for the urban core of the municipality since 2015. In an earlier version of the proposed plan, the maximum height limit was 20 storeys.

Details of the new development rules were presented to the community design advisory committee on Wednesday.

The councillor for Halifax West Armdale agrees with the change. Shawn Cleary said the density of a project remains the same, so if a developer decides to go higher, the tower will have to be thinner.

Keith P. · #**174** Posted **Apr 11, 2019, 10:13 PM**

If Cleary is for it, I'm against it..

Read the thing. It is so convoluted nobody will want to bother with it. And it makes one wonder why it was necessary to make it so complex.

OldDartmouthMark · #**175** Posted **Apr 12, 2019, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If Cleary is for it, I'm against it..

Read the thing. It is so convoluted nobody will want to bother with it. And it makes one wonder why it was necessary to make it so complex.

I don't want to take the time to read through it right now, so I'll leave judgement to my well-informed fellow skyscraper members...

I see the height increase as a step in the right direction, but not enough. Watching along to see what happens...

Keith P. · #**176** Posted **Apr 12, 2019, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't want to take the time to read through it right now, so I'll leave judgement to my well-informed fellow skyscraper members...

I see the height increase as a step in the right direction, but not enough. Watching along to see what happens...

Realistically there is no height increase. The plan actually will make the current and typical 8-12 floor midrise about 6 floors because of the silly FAR metric. A 27 storey building will not exist under this because they are only allowed in a handful of areas to begin with, and even then would need a prohibitively large lot to meet the FAR requirement. It is a very cynical way of saying they allow height when realistically they will not.

OldDartmouthMark · #**177** Posted **Apr 12, 2019, 10:11 PM**

They certainly seem to have made a mess of things, haven't they?

You know it's bad when councillors have declared all-out war on a developer for wanting to build what would be considered a mid-rise in many places.

https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-ne...ission-1368577

Now it's gonna endanger the children, cast a huge shadow covering lake Banook, create hurricane force winds etc...

The kicker for me regarding that neighborhood is that it is surrounded by hilly terrain, where there's an elevation difference of about 40 m from the building site to the top of the hill... that hill is too tall!

http://en-ca.topographic-map.com/pla...Banook-370256/

Keith P. · #**178** Posted **Apr 13, 2019, 12:20 AM**

Rissesco is supposedly the head of the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission. So he's coming out against a business, even though he admits a hotel is needed? What is wrong with this dude? Does he hate his job and want to get fired? What a statement for someone in his position to be making. Another winner.

Council in general, and Austin in particular, ought to be ashamed of themselves. They're acting like bullies, pure and simple.

worldlyhaligonian · #**179** Posted **Apr 13, 2019, 12:38 AM**

Where does the 27 story height limit come from, anyway?

Seems very arbitrary. This is a really bad "plan".

Keith P. · #**180** Posted **Apr 13, 2019, 1:23 AM**

In the previous draft, it was 20. That was a pandering number they made up in the midst of the NIMBY uprising against the Quinpool/Robie proposal. A few voices on Council - I think Adams, surely not the usual suspects of Mason, Cleary, Austin, et al - said that was absurd and they needed more height. So they pulled 27 out of the air.

It is indeed a very bad plan. Note that the Prince Albert Rd site where the 16 storey hotel is supposed to be built would be limited to 6 floors, which is lunacy for that area.