[Halifax] Gorsebrook Park (1048 Wellington) | 30 m | 10 fl | Completed

[Jringe01]

Shame...I liked the proposal

[JET]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

They did attempt a few times to set a limit to what could be said.
Frankly the first one was a pip.
The personal attacks on Waye are NOT helpful and even though I'm not a moderator (polite hint for DJ to weight in here); personal attacks are not allowed on the forum. Disagree if you will (we do a lot); but personal attacks - can em.

I suggest that there should be minimum standards: if Keith is being supportive of another poster then I think that we should all go along with that, making sure that we are first sitting down when the observation is made

[Dmajackson]

This proposal is back from the grave. They are now proposing 10 & 8 floors with a 1 floor shared podium.

Case 19326 Details

[xanaxanax]

uhtoh

[Dmajackson]

A Public Information Meeting (PIM) hosted by the District 7&8 Planning Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 24, 2014, beginning at 7:00 p.m., at Halifax Hall, City Hall, 1841 Argyle Street, Halifax

[Dmajackson]

Staff is recommending against approving this proposal, however, in an interesting turn of events Halifax & West Community Council is recommending this be approved.

Staff Report

[Keith P.]

In fact it was apparently quite nasty at Community Council when Mason and Watts were unable to get the support of Mosher, Walker, Rankin and Adams to scuttle this. Mason reportedly made threats of future retribution on the political level against the council members who wanted this to go to a hearing. Apparently the 4 in favor of this have had enough of the two left-leaning peninsula council members.

[ILoveHalifax]

Very interesting. So he (Mason) would be more interested in getting even with someone who does not vote his way rather than assessing each proposal on their individual merit. Does not sound like a very mature approach to the job.

[Hali87]

To be fair, the staff report (which recommended against the proposal) is very rational and I generally agree with it (it would be nice if the discussions regarding setbacks and tower separation were illustrated, even with basic massing models/sketches). But the project's design does not set a particularly good urban design precedent, and it's not really a life-or-death project. We're basically past the point where you can really say that it's a huge uphill battle to get "density on the peninsula": there are plenty of projects underway that conform to the existing rules (or are well enough designed to merit exceptions); IMO this isn't one of them. There is more to building a livable city than just more density all the time. Design is an important factor and Bjerke seems to understand this, which is actually a great sign.

The towers proposed for Quinpool/Robie are another project I'm pretty ambivalent towards. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong), the developer didn't address any of the changes requested by staff in the original report. It wasn't necessarily a case of "people being scared of tall buildings"; there were a number of concerns about things other than building height that apparently they just ignored. If the project gets rejected then that is a fair reason IMO.

[Hali87]

To be fair, the staff report (which recommended against the proposal) is very rational and I generally agree with it (it would be nice if the discussions regarding setbacks and tower separation were illustrated, even with basic massing models/sketches). But the project's design does not set a particularly good urban design precedent, and it's not really a life-or-death project. We're basically past the point where you can really say that it's a huge uphill battle to get "density on the peninsula": there are plenty of projects underway that conform to the existing rules (or are well enough designed to merit exceptions); IMO this isn't one of them. There is more to building a livable city than just more density all the time. Design is an important factor and Bjerke seems to understand this, which is actually a great sign.

The towers proposed for Quinpool/Robie are another project I'm pretty ambivalent towards. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong), the developer didn't address any of the changes requested by staff in the original report. It wasn't necessarily a case of "people being scared of tall buildings"; there were a number of concerns about things other than building height that apparently they just ignored. If the project gets rejected then that is a fair reason IMO.

[Keith P.]

I wasn't there, but I think part of the issue here is that there are already a couple of buildings on this street taller than the two proposed. Now one can argue those were a mistake, that these should step down heights from those (they do, but only to a certain extent), etc, but I can see the argument why these are not all that different from existing structures in the area. There was a posting here a while ago of an aerial photo of the neighborhood that showed the tabletop effect in this area - it is full of 3 and 4-storey buildings like those that would presumably be more acceptable to the planners. I frankly do not see the harm in these.

But the political fallout is far more interesting. Mason posted a bitter tweet the night of the hearing accusing the 4 councillors on the other side as "voting against the community". That seems rather inflammatory.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

We're basically past the point where you can really say that it's a huge uphill battle to get "density on the peninsula."

True, but that won't stop lots of people, including a lot of media commentators with a wide influence, from saying so, and trotting out the usual "Halifax hates change/is anti-development/is run by NIMBYs" arguments any time a project faces criticism or when staff dares to suggest that maybe a developer rethink some aspect of a project. I really do think that some people locally look to Toronto and Calgary and Vancouver and imagine that developers just run the show in those cities, and rarely face political or resident opposition, as if design guidelines and prescriptive zoning and resident opposition are uniquely Haligonian.

Having said that, while I don't think the project in question looks especially amazing, I do think some of the concerns about it are a bit reactionary.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Mason posted a bitter tweet the night of the hearing accusing the 4 councillors on the other side as "voting against the community". That seems rather inflammatory.

Yeah... that's really unfortunate.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I wasn't there, but I think part of the issue here is that there are already a couple of buildings on this street taller than the two proposed. Now one can argue those were a mistake, that these should step down heights from those (they do, but only to a certain extent), etc, but I can see the argument why these are not all that different from existing structures in the area. There was a posting here a while ago of an aerial photo of the neighborhood that showed the tabletop effect in this area - it is full of 3 and 4-storey buildings like those that would presumably be more acceptable to the planners. I frankly do not see the harm in these.

But the political fallout is far more interesting. Mason posted a bitter tweet the night of the hearing accusing the 4 councillors on the other side as "voting against the community". That seems rather inflammatory.

Councillors often have side deals which are never explained to the public.
'Support me on this and I'll support you on that'
In this case, as in several others, the out of area councillors want the revenue for HRM and then they find ways to spend it in the areas they represent. The regional centre members are outnumbered by those outside.
It would be better if the regional core was a community council with the power to extract and retain financial benefits from new developments.

[counterfactual]

I have a problem with the template for these Staff Reports.

There is a section there on "FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS". This almost as a rule is dealt with only in a few lines, usually with this header "There are no budget implications".

This is absolute crap, of course. There are obviously broader and long term budgetary implications for how you do planning, particularly based on location and density. If a proposal adds density to the regional centre, or would be located on existing infrastructure, this actually has a positive budgetary impact. If a proposal is located outside regional centres or the core, would require extending infrastructure or eventually would require expansion of road networks and transit routes, and may lead to more traffic or congestion, then this is quite obviously a negative financial implication and budget impact. But, we never see that.

There may be some design problems with this proposal, but to say that a proposal done in the heart of the regional centre, adding density and not sprawl, has no financial impact is shortsighted and stupid.

The entire debate surrounding the Regional Plan-- and the continued focus by HRM staff on road networks and suburban growth in early drafts--and the broader analysis of the Stantec Report, put the lie to this sort of thinking.

There should be a more thoughtful take on the "financial implications" of each and every proposal. Not a few cut-and-paste lines that the developer will "cover all costs". We know that sprawl developers rarely do.

[halifaxboyns]

I think someone earlier (perhaps Keith) hit the nail on the head about the context of the area. Part of the issue is that you have a couple taller buildings which may not have gotten there because the City approved them (they could have been appeals that were won and over turned the City's decision). This is why planning applications are judged on the basis of their merits (case by case).

For me, I'm neither here nor there on this proposal. If it goes ahead or doesn't, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over. My concern is over the major corridors - but it does raise an interesting question that how much protection should 'established neighbourhoods' get?

I do agree with Counterfactual about the financial implications comments in reports. I know we here in Calgary are guilty of 'no impacts' or other generalized statements but we've been slowly realizing we need to post more.

Hali's comments about the Quinpool proposal and the recent lawsuit by a developer do concern me greatly...but I'll leave those comments for a different thread.

[Keith P.]

MasonWatts lost another one today at Council. Despite their pleas to the other members to not allow this to go to a public hearing, Council voted to move it along to that step.

One interesting comment during the debate - a council member (forget which one) said that one of the voices from the area opposing this was from a person who lived on the 10th floor of the adjacent building, while another member of the opposition was the owner of 3 condo units in that same building. NIMBY or enlightened self-interest, it all smells the same.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

MasonWatts lost another one today at Council. Despite their pleas to the other members to not allow this to go to a public hearing, Council voted to move it along to that step.

One interesting comment during the debate - a council member (forget which one) said that one of the voices from the area opposing this was from a person who lived on the 10th floor of the adjacent building, while another member of the opposition was the owner of 3 condo units in that same building. NIMBY or enlightened self-interest, it all smells the same.

Great news!

Maybe we need to coin a new phrase like "people who live in glass houses..."?

"People who live in 10+ buildings shouldn't be able to vote against 10 story buildings"

Guys, think of the children and lack of HUMAN SCALE! We're all going to die from shadows and whirlwinds, nevermind the proximity of taller buildings... that is irrelevant due to some "planning" strategy that must strictly be followed, or else the end of the world will ensue.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Great news!
Guys, think of the children and lack of HUMAN SCALE! We're all going to die from shadows and whirlwinds, nevermind the proximity of taller buildings... that is irrelevant due to some "planning" strategy that must strictly be followed, or else the end of the world will ensue.

MasonWatts tried a new and interesting argument today: "It's not about the height, it's about the design!". As distinct from the usual "It's not about the design; it's TOO TALL!!!".

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

MasonWatts tried a new and interesting argument today: "It's not about the height, it's about the design!". As distinct from the usual "It's not about the design; it's TOO TALL!!!".

Mason said the developer would not be allowed to proceed with the proposal in the downtown
Tomorrow CDAC commences the process to prepare a regional centre plan. In my opinion public confidence in the process is vital and how the council handles a development proposal that does not meet the requirements of the existing MPS will impact the have consequences for such confidence.
Staff have recommended rejection of the proposal, a rare event and based their opinion on sound planning as well as the refusal of the developer to consider changing the proposal. As I said yesterday, if outside councillors want to approve such projects because all they can see are dollar signs they should be willing to ensure the financial benefits accrue to that area of HRM.