[Halifax] The Winslow (2570 Windsor) | 20 m | 7 fl | U/C - Page 3

Dmajackson · #41 Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyeas

Yeah I measured on googlemaps and Gladstone is 200 meters from the site.

Welsford is ~600 metres away
The residential building at the corner of Robie and Cunard is 450 metres away.

halifaxboyns · #42 Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

There will be people opposed to new things anywhere you move... perhaps an open-minded neighbour or two might help the rest of the 'hood along?

It also remains to be seen whether or not the design has actually changed. What Jennifer is describing may be an unsavoury change... OR it may be misinterpretation of technical drawings submitted for formal applications. Not everyone is adept at reading plans and elevations. If it is a switch - I reserve judgment until I see these new altered drawings. If it is a misinterpretation from a group of laypeople, then it seems the developer needs to educate the neighbourhood a little better.

I know - it was a joke

David1gray · #43 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 12:13 PM**

a story on this on cbc's website today suggesting that this developement house gay and lesbein seniors.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...velopment.html

JET · #44 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by David1gray

a story on this on cbc's website today suggesting that this developement house gay and lesbein seniors.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...velopment.html

Interesting that the CBC story was closed to comments.

halifaxboyns · #45 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 5:44 PM**

They typically do that (close it to comments) when they know it will spark a rash of ignorant comments.

As an openly gay man - I was a little surprised about this. I don't think they can focus on just 'gay' seniors; it would have to be open to everyone. That stems from the Supreme Court decision back in the 80's that in zoning terms - Senior's specific housing was a form of agism and forced many planning rules to be changed (but they still do it; just not by name).

It's certainly an interesting concept...not sure how they would do it.

beyeas · #46 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 6:43 PM**

Yeah I agree with you Halifaxboyns. It is one thing to put in place a seniors home that is gay-friendly, but quite another to make it exclusive.
I am sure there probably is a genuine need to have seniors homes that are open to gay people, but I can't see it being something that you have to be gay to get in and have that pass muster.

someone123 · #47 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 7:25 PM**

They didn't say gay-exclusive in the article. The idea would be to have a home that is explicitly gay-positive so that residents are not shocked when they find out they live next door to somebody who isn't straight. I can imagine it being an issue at these homes given how accepting the over-80 demographic tends to be.

beyeas · #48 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 7:58 PM**

True... re-read the article and you are totally right. Unsurprisingly the headlines on this one are mis-leading :-) But yeah the actual quotes are only that it would be GLBT+, which as I said above I am sure is something that is needed.

Dmajackson · #49 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 8:25 PM**

I don't even understand why an article was needed. When the project first came out I remember reading despite it being a church the building would be GLBT friendly. So if the developer and the association agree why are they trying to put the pressure on the developer?

beyeas · #50 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 9:28 PM**

My guess is that it is not so much someone pressuring the developer, but just a slow news day and somebody made a story out of this because it sounded sensational.

halifaxboyns · #51 Posted **Oct 20, 2010, 10:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

They didn't say gay-exclusive in the article. The idea would be to have a home that is explicitly gay-positive so that residents are not shocked when they find out they live next door to somebody who isn't straight. I can imagine it being an issue at these homes given how accepting the over-80 demographic tends to be.

That's true - I miswrote what I meant; but yes it would be gay positive.
I wonder if there is a lot of pressure mounting against this and the developer is grasping at straws? I hope not...either way it's an interesting concept. Of course, they would bring that up today since today was a day organized by the gay community to where purple to be against gay teen suicides after 5 people committed suicide in the US from bullying. Perhaps that's why the put it up today?

Btw, I am wearing purple.

JET · #52 Posted **Oct 21, 2010, 12:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

That's true - I miswrote what I meant; but yes it would be gay positive.
I wonder if there is a lot of pressure mounting against this and the developer is grasping at straws? I hope not...either way it's an interesting concept. Of course, they would bring that up today since today was a day organized by the gay community to where purple to be against gay teen suicides after 5 people committed suicide in the US from bullying. Perhaps that's why the put it up today?

Btw, I am wearing purple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2DyzhxpA0

Dmajackson · #53 Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 8:02 PM**

The Initiation Report for this project is being brought forward to Regional Council on Tuesday.

Dmajackson · #54 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 5:48 AM**

As Someone123 mentioned in the other thread this project was initiated tonight and was allowed to move foward to PIM and PH stage by a 17 - 4 vote. Sadly I watched the debate on the project and I know for sure that 3 of the 4 peninsular councillors voted against this project based on its "excessive" height.

Buildings of this height or greater go up in the 'burbs all the time which is not a good sign for future development as the urban councillors are convinced single family homes belong on main streets in the urban core. Anyone else find it ironic that Sloane and Uteck complain about all the development and infrastructure going up in the suburbs yet everytime there is a project planned for their niche of HRM they almost always vote against them? If it wasn't for the suburban councillors voting in favour there would be no construction in the core nowadays.

Dmajackson · #55 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 12:31 PM**

Public gets say on central Halifax development
Neighbours split on 7-storey building proposed for Windsor Street
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Wed, Jan 19 - 7:16 AM

Quote:

Citizens will have their say about a controversial development proposed for a peninsular Halifax neighbourhood, regional council decided Tuesday.

A community participation process will cover a proposed seven-storey, mixed-use building that would be built on the corner of Willow and Windsor streets.

Halifax Regional Municipality’s planning and land-use rules would have to be amended before construction can begin. Public input must be gathered first, council said.

The height and scope of the project, a church redevelopment with 65 apartments for seniors, are contentious. Council has received petitions in support of the proposed development and against it.

A municipal staff report recommended the public participation program proceed. It said planners have "some concern" with the building’s height but suggested the politicians press ahead with public consultation.

What has been proposed in the leafy, west-end district is St. John’s United Church’s Spirit Place. The redevelopment plan calls for a place for a declining congregation to worship, church offices, apartment units, community program space and underground parking.

"The immediate area surrounding the . . . site consists mainly of residential" properties," said the staff report, prepared by senior planner Luc Ouellet.

"However, the area also contains some low-rise, multi-unit residential buildings, including a three-storey apartment building directly abutting the site . . . and some commercial establishments."

A church website addresses the loss of parishioners over the years.

"In a time when family structures are changing and children are committed to many school and extracurricular activities, church attendance is waning," the website said.

"To keep a congregation strong, churches must transform — they must offer continued spiritual guidance, as well as extend out into the community to find new ways to engage the public."

Neighbours who oppose the project have said the planned building is too big for the area. A couple of councillors who spoke against it agreed with the concerned residents.

But there were other councillors who said the proposal should at least be subject to a public participation program. The room appeared divided, but after a show of hands, Mayor Peter Kelly said a majority had approved the input program.

Should the Spirit Place project go ahead, it may only happen after changes are made.

"The measure of success that the proposed building has in responding to its surroundings will be gauged through the (community input) process and with further review and modification of the project" if necessary, the staff report said.

The proposed project is in Coun. Jennifer Watts’s district of Connaught-Quinpool. She declared a "potential" conflict of interest and removed herself from the council chamber before Tuesday’s debate because she is a St. John’s congregant.

halifaxboyns · #56 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

As Someone123 mentioned in the other thread this project was initiated tonight and was allowed to move foward to PIM and PH stage by a 17 - 4 vote. Sadly I watched the debate on the project and I know for sure that 3 of the 4 peninsular councillors voted against this project based on its "excessive" height.

Buildings of this height or greater go up in the 'burbs all the time which is not a good sign for future development as the urban councillors are convinced single family homes belong on main streets in the urban core. Anyone else find it ironic that Sloane and Uteck complain about all the development and infrastructure going up in the suburbs yet everytime there is a project planned for their niche of HRM they almost always vote against them? If it wasn't for the suburban councillors voting in favour there would be no construction in the core nowadays.

Who voted against the project going forward? I'll bet at least Watts and Bluementhal.

halifaxboyns · #57 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 8:48 PM**

I guess I found my answer to my own question...

(from CBC)
Halifax gay seniors complex to be debated

An artist's rendering shows the current design for Spirit Place. (Spirit Place)A proposal for a seniors complex that will focus on welcoming gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered seniors will be debated by the public, Halifax Regional Council decided Tuesday.

The seven-storey development, proposed for the site of the vacant St. John's United Church on the corner of Windsor and Willow streets in Halifax, has been dubbed Spirit Place.

On Tuesday night, regional councillors discussed the height and scope of the project — a redeveloped church and 65 apartments for seniors — and expressed concerns, but ultimately voted to go ahead with public consultations.

Coun. Dawn Sloane said the current project is too big and should be redesigned. She said the size of the building will devalue existing homes in the area.

"Should they be impacted to the point where they may not have sunlight in their backyard, or parking becomes a real hassle in their neighbourhood because of people visiting?" she asked.

Councillors said they had received petitions both for and against the proposal.

Louisa Horne, a Spirit Place board member, said she's upset that some councillors argued against the proposal.

"The petition opposed to the project had something in the order of 100 names, the one in support had over 700," she told CBC News on Wednesday.

"The way that Halifax seems to work around development, it doesn't take very many people to be opposed to something for it to be slowed down."

Horne said the plans for Spirit Place have already been changed several times to accommodate opponents of the project, but the idea continues to generate controversy.

"Overall, we've heard all the way along with this project that people have had concerns about the structure itself and about the nature of the facility and the affirming nature of the facility," said Horne.

"All of those things give people cause to question and that's fine to have that public dialogue."

A date for the public hearing has not yet been set.

worldlyhaligonian · #58 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 9:37 PM**

Louisa Horne, a Spirit Place board member, said she's upset that some councillors argued against the proposal.

"The petition opposed to the project had something in the order of 100 names, the one in support had over 700," she told CBC News on Wednesday.

"The way that Halifax seems to work around development, it doesn't take very many people to be opposed to something for it to be slowed down."

Yep! Nailed it on this one Louisa, now you know how we feel on this message board.

Sloane - Could you possibly elaborate on how a decaying church would decrease home values less then a vibrant new development of similar height... and what the actual impact of shadows will be from the proposed development? I find these kind of statements you make totally bogus.

worldlyhaligonian · #59 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 9:40 PM**

Esp. given the fact that homes in this area have done nothing but increase in value over time, and given the new property assessments, are likely to continute to increase in value.

halifaxboyns · #60 Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 10:11 PM**

This is where I have to disagree with Councillor Sloane 100%. This is the perfect location as the bulk is close to Windsor street, so short cutting shouldn't be a problem.

This may also spur developers to begin building more of these near by, bulstering the local school populations.

There is also one thing I've learned over my career out here in Alberta - development almost NEVER causes property values to go down. Hell, we refused a BFI landfill to continue operating (which was overturned on appeal) and there is a new residential community going up within 300m of it - those houses START at 350K. And that's near a landfill!!!