Centre Plan

[Hali87]

The map includes a small section of one side of Cogswell Street, not the part that's being redeveloped.

Page 4 places the Cogswell Interchange in Downtown Halifax, and basically says that a plan for that will come later What ideas are being smashed here?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by scryer

My comparison to Winnipeg was to illustrate that Halifax is approaching a similar population (with this 40% number being thrown around) to Winnipeg at one time, and that Winnipeg never placed a detrimental height limit in its downtown when it has a limitless amount of flatland to sprawl onto.

Okay but counterpoint: downtown Winnipeg is still kind of bleak.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The map includes a small section of one side of Cogswell Street, not the part that's being redeveloped.

Page 4 places the Cogswell Interchange in Downtown Halifax, and basically says that a plan for that will come later What ideas are being smashed here?

Yes, there's still a possibility that they'll allow for taller buildings, literally right where the interchange is presently standing, but they've completely boxed in and narrowed this area with this Plan, undermining any kind of additional high density expansion, either to the north or west (to the east you are banked by the water).

Look at Figure 1 on page 3-- the Interchange itself is covered by the "downtown" area, but it is banked on pretty much every side, preventing any kind of expansion. The "Gottingen Centre" extends down past Brunswick, so there is not expansion on the other side of Cogswell. And then there is more "established residential" banking the Cogswell Interchange area just to the north.

On this Centre Plan, there is literally ONE area designated for higher density development, and that is the purple area that is essentially the HRMxD zone, but this is worst, because it narrows even that development zone (there are no dark purple areas around SGR, if you notice). There are no more "downtown" areas beyond a small chunk in Halifax by the water, which is already regulated to death when it comes to height and development by viewplanes/ramparts, and a few blocks on the Dartmouth side.

Even around Quinnpool, a "Centre" under the plan, allows 20 stories as a max limit, and even that max height is only allowed in like TWO parcels of land (at Quinnpool and Robie) where there are already tall buildings, and nowhere else. Thus, no chance for new taller buildings in this area beyond these two parcels where there are already buildings. Absolutely Ludicrous.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Okay but counterpoint: downtown Winnipeg is still kind of bleak.

Correlation is not causation. Just because you don't employ a stupid policy (height limit) doesn't mean your downtown is going to be alive and vibrant, especially when you allow sprawl development to get out of hand (as Winnipeg did).

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by scryer

My comparison to Winnipeg was to illustrate that Halifax is approaching a similar population (with this 40% number being thrown around) to Winnipeg at one time, and that Winnipeg never placed a detrimental height limit in its downtown when it has a limitless amount of flatland to sprawl onto.

Nonetheless, Winnipeg isn't full of really much taller buildings than Halifax relative to its size, regardless of arbitrary height limits.

You noted yourself that Winnipeg's tallest building was at some point 33 stories, just like Halifax's is now, when Winnipeg was already much larger than Halifax is now.

The example seems to demonstrate more that Halifax is already doing pretty well in high-rise development relative to Winnipeg.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is it so much denser? These stats (page 70) show that when you exclude all the rural HRM bits (which artificially deflate our density stats) and compare only the real "urban areas", Victoria is only only marginally denser. Though it also indicates that London, Ontario is FAR denser than Halifax, and Quebec City less so, both of which seem very counterintuitive to me. So who knows.

Yeah, density stats are all over the place. The stats I was looking at seemed to suggest that Victoria "city" is almost 4 times as dense (4,109.4/km2) as Halifax "urban" (1,077.2/km2). Who knows what city and urban are in these stats. Certainly Halifax urban includes Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville. I'm not sure what Victoria city includes. I used to be able to find stats for Halifax (former city) but can't find those anymore.

Overall I find downtown Victoria looks and feels a lot more dense than downtown Halifax despite downtown Halifax being much more high-rise. That's obviously a subjective observation though.

In any case, I hope we got those 3 or 4 30ish story buildings that are already proposed, and I'm not sure it will matter for another 20 years or so because I can't see many more being proposed before then anyway. Halifax's building boom has been exciting but I don't know how it can't go on at this pace for much longer.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Okay but counterpoint: downtown Winnipeg is still kind of bleak.

...I think you are missing the point. Even in a disenchanted downtown area, there were straight-up economic reasons for building a highrise (from a developer's point of view) as opposed to anything else. I never brought up the condition of Winnipeg's downtown nor did I even get want to get into what makes a city vibrant. And my criticism is that a 20 floor limit in downtown designated areas is a turn off to any business investors or developers looking to bring jobs to the city.

Nonetheless, Winnipeg isn't full of really much taller buildings than Halifax relative to its size, regardless of arbitrary height limits.

Winnipeg is flat and has limitless amount of land to sprawl out to. And it did just that. There has barely been any development in the city's core for the last 25 years. The suburbs sure flourished though while its downtown started to rot. It's only in the last 3, maybe 4, years where the city realized that they needed to inject some sudden life into the core. As Winnipeg grew in population from the 70's, it grew in such an unbalanced fashion where downtown Winnipeg ended up being mostly ignored .

You noted yourself that Winnipeg's tallest building was at some point 33 stories, just like Halifax's is now, when Winnipeg was already much larger than Halifax is now.

The example seems to demonstrate more that Halifax is already doing pretty well in high-rise development relative to Winnipeg.

I was going to keep it simple and stick with floor levels because I REALLY don't want to make it a dick comparing contest and make anyone feel offended. But since we are taking it there....

- Winnipeg's tallest building is 33 floors, 128m (420ft)
- Halifax's tallest building (Fenwick, after redevelopment) is 36 floors, 106m

- The Canadian Human Rights museum in Winnipeg, which is not considered a highrise building, stands at 12 floors, 100m (330ft). This museum is taller than your tallest before the Fenwick got its redevelopment.

I do mean to be frank about this comparison but I'm really trying not to offend anyone; just to introduce a new way of analyzing things. 30+ floors can mean a lot. And we see it in the Winnipeg and Halifax example and in that case the difference was about 100ft.

For the record, Halifax is taller than Victoria. But Victoria ain't got no qualms building 30 floor highrises in their downtown.

Back to my point: floor and height limits, also limits economic growth. And I feel that a 20 floor limit in downtown designated areas is just bad business.

This post made me realize something... Does it mention in the Centre Plan what the height limits are in metres/ft? I'd be more interested in that!

And for the record, having grown up in Winnipeg, the fact that Halifax is discussing a growth strategy is a great sign for the city! Winnipeg never did this; all they did was build roads and houses. Its once vibrant downtown was drowned out by the suburbs. And I would argue that it still is.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by scryer

Back to my point: floor and height limits, also limits economic growth. And I feel that a 20 floor limit in downtown designated areas is just bad business.

Is there really correlation between the tallness of a city's buildings and the number of jobs it offers? A four-storey limit would sure stifle growth in some ways, but 20? I strongly doubt developers or businesses would decide not to operate in a place due to a lack of very tall buildings. This argument, in spirit, is to the tortured conflating of heritage demolitions with youth retention (in essence, " let developers tear down whatever they want so they can create jobs and keep young people here", which is almost word-for-word a real line of argument I've heard.

Like I said up-thread, I think we're all mad swing here, and there's not actually a city-wide 20-storey limit bring imposed. But if there is, I don't think it's going to shift GDP, income, or employment numbers at all.

[Colin May]

Existing height precinct peninsula Halifax :
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/plan...mber2014to.pdf

Other suitable links on this page : http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/plan...axPlanArea.php

[Colin May]

http://theoryandpractice.planning.da...hesis_2014.pdf
A good background thesis

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is there really correlation between the tallness of a city's buildings and the number of jobs it offers? A four-storey limit would sure stifle growth in some ways, but 20? I strongly doubt developers or businesses would decide not to operate in a place due to a lack of very tall buildings. This argument, in spirit, is to the tortured conflating of heritage demolitions with youth retention (in essence, " let developers tear down whatever they want so they can create jobs and keep young people here", which is almost word-for-word a real line of argument I've heard.

Like I said up-thread, I think we're all mad swing here, and there's not actually a city-wide 20-storey limit bring imposed. But if there is, I don't think it's going to shift GDP, income, or employment numbers at all.

I'd ask the apposite question: Is there a correlation between height limits and heritage preservation?

Because that seemed be the group think among Heritage activists in this city for literally decades, still persisting today, and how has that worked out?

Arguably, the Doyle stands as a perfect repudiation of that line of thinking on its own.

If developers can build taller in certain places, there is greater economic incentive and flexibility to preserve heritage structures in other ways.

The more important point, is that these two issues should be separated. You can allow higher buildings, and reap economic benefits, and still preserve heritage in other, more direct, ways. It's not one or the other.

IMHO, because what the present Plan suggests is something far worse than a "city wide 20 story height limit". If that were the case-- you could literally go 20 stories in most key areas / centres-- it wouldn't be so worrying, stupid, and shortsighted.

Instead, the Plan suggests that outside HRMXD zone, there will literally be only a few tiny pockets in a handful of areas (a few parcels at Quinnpool, two parcels at SGR/Birmingham, a few parcels at SGR/Robie, Wyse Road, & Young Street, and literally nowhere else) around the downtown core, where you can build that high.

Downtown has been economically depressed for literally decades and there's a reason why the revival we've seen followed the adoption of HRMxD, which provided development certainty in an area where a hard height limit (ramparts / viewplanes) or de facto one (endless red tape, uncertainty, and constant litigation threats from groups like Heritage and STV).

The Centre Plan literally aims to turn back the clock, and create swaths of hard height limits through out most of the peninsula-- the vast majority of which will be locked in at 1-3 stories-- undermining any economic incentive to propose higher density developments.

Expect both a continuing escalation in housing costs downtown, helping us catch up with other unreasonable housing markets in the country! (yay!), and either another flight to the suburbs for developers or just more expansion of sprawl and traffic zones like Clayton Park and the Bedford Highway, or simply a big reduction in any development/expansion.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by scryer

...I think you are missing the point. Even in a disenchanted downtown area, there were straight-up economic reasons for building a highrise (from a developer's point of view) as opposed to anything else. I never brought up the condition of Winnipeg's downtown nor did I even get want to get into what makes a city vibrant. And my criticism is that a 20 floor limit in downtown designated areas is a turn off to any business investors or developers looking to bring jobs to the city.

What economic case? Where? How do you know?

Originally Posted by scryer

Winnipeg is flat and has limitless amount of land to sprawl out to. And it did just that. There has barely been any development in the city's core for the last 25 years. The suburbs sure flourished though while its downtown started to rot. It's only in the last 3, maybe 4, years where the city realized that they needed to inject some sudden life into the core. As Winnipeg grew in population from the 70's, it grew in such an unbalanced fashion where downtown Winnipeg ended up being mostly ignored .

Like I said, you appear to making the case that Halifax should avoid what Winnipeg has done, while (maybe?) trying to argue the opposite? I really can't tell what your thesis is.

Originally Posted by scryer

I was going to keep it simple and stick with floor levels because I REALLY don't want to make it a dick comparing contest and make anyone feel offended. But since we are taking it there....

- Winnipeg's tallest building is 33 floors, 128m (420ft)
- Halifax's tallest building (Fenwick, after redevelopment) is 36 floors, 106m

- The Canadian Human Rights museum in Winnipeg, which is not considered a highrise building, stands at 12 floors, 100m (330ft). This museum is taller than your tallest before the Fenwick got its redevelopment.

I do mean to be frank about this comparison but I'm really trying not to offend anyone; just to introduce a new way of analyzing things. 30+ floors can mean a lot. And we see it in the Winnipeg and Halifax example and in that case the difference was about 100ft.

So Winnipeg, a city twice the size of Halifax, has three or four buildings that are taller that the tallest building in Halifax. Why would that be offensive? Why are you implying that anyone made it a "dick comparing contest"? It is to be expected.

Again, what is your point? What is your argument? You don't like a 20 story height limit, but what in the world does the fact that the top height in Winnipeg is 5 stories higher than Halifax, just as one would expect it to be, have to do with it? What does your attempt at an "analysis" tell us about this?

Originally Posted by scryer

For the record, Halifax is taller than Victoria. But Victoria ain't got no qualms building 30 floor highrises in their downtown.

Oh? No? Where are they then?

Originally Posted by scryer

Back to my point: floor and height limits, also limits economic growth. And I feel that a 20 floor limit in downtown designated areas is just bad business.

That was your point? OK... But show us the evidence, the correlation between arbitrary height limits and economic growth. Where are the data demonstrating this condition?

I like tall buildings. I want Halifax to have a few more in the 30 story range too. But this idea that so many people have that if we just build a couple of 40 story buildings we'll finally "make it" into the "big leagues" and become a magnet for in-migration and business and the arts and sports teams etc. etc. etc. is a very unsophisticated argument, like the rubes of Springfield being sold on the transformative power of the monorail.

I don't think a 20-story height limit is necessary. Burt I also don't think it will do much to prevent taller buildings when their time comes anyway. Taller buildings will be built when the market conditions suit the developers' plans to build them. Municipal attempts to prevent it will delay the inevitable for a few years just like it does in any North American city, and then some barrier will be broken and it will open the flood gates.

It's happening in Vancouver right now, where for many years a height limit prevented true skyscrapers (but also, in turn, resulted in one of the densest, most impressive mid-size-city skylines anywhere!) - but then one got through, and then another, and now the skyline is shooting up ever higher.

It'll happen when it needs to happen regardless of any attempt to impose a 20 story limit. (Remember HRMxD? Ha!)

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is there really correlation between the tallness of a city's buildings and the number of jobs it offers? A four-storey limit would sure stifle growth in some ways, but 20? I strongly doubt developers or businesses would decide not to operate in a place due to a lack of very tall buildings. This argument, in spirit, is to the tortured conflating of heritage demolitions with youth retention (in essence, " let developers tear down whatever they want so they can create jobs and keep young people here", which is almost word-for-word a real line of argument I've heard.

Like I said up-thread, I think we're all mad swing here, and there's not actually a city-wide 20-storey limit bring imposed. But if there is, I don't think it's going to shift GDP, income, or employment numbers at all.

Agreed. The height limit, if it even exists, will be almost meaningless to job creation, population retention, etc. And it will very likely go to the wayside when the development community decides to challenge it anyway.

I think there's an impression out there that building taller buildings makes a city bigger. I'm pretty much 100% certain that cities become bigger for other reasons, and then the buildings get bigger as the population and economic growth compel them to, regardless of activist or municipal resistance.

[Colin May]

Peninsula Halifax has an area of 4,783 acres and in 1951 had a population of 85,589 and a density of 17.89 persons per acre.
..

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The Centre Plan literally aims to turn back the clock, and create swaths of hard height limits through out most of the peninsula-- the vast majority of which will be locked in at 1-3 stories-- undermining any economic incentive to propose higher density developments.

I do agree that the 1-3 storey limit in is too restrictive, but it's the same kind of restriction that unfortunately exists pretty much across North America in so-called stable or established areas. In many cities, said restrictions are partly to blame for the extreme housing costs in cities like San Fran.

That's not really the case in Halifax, I don't think, but I would like to see more mid-rise permitted in "established" areas.

Anyway, I guess the details are released this week? We'll see what the plan looks like in full soon...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Peninsula Halifax has an area of 4,783 acres and in 1951 had a population of 85,589 and a density of 17.89 persons per acre.

I think it is more useful to look at one geographical area over time, like the peninsula, rather than compare different arbitrary areas using measures of density.

The peninsula is interesting because the population density has declined but it is much more developed today than it was in 1951. Households have become wealthier and smaller and there has been a shift from residential to commercial development (with the pendulum now swinging back a bit). Sometimes people will compare the population in 1951 to 2011 and simply conclude that the peninsula has "declined" but that is not a good interpretation. Population density often goes down as an area becomes wealthier.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Yeah, density stats are all over the place. The stats I was looking at seemed to suggest that Victoria "city" is almost 4 times as dense (4,109.4/km2) as Halifax "urban" (1,077.2/km2). Who knows what city and urban are in these stats. Certainly Halifax urban includes Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville. I'm not sure what Victoria city includes.

The City of Victoria only covers a small land area of around 4-5 kilometres squared centred around downtown.

This sounds like a meaningless cliche but I have often felt that Victoria feels more like a large town while Halifax feels like a small city. For better or worse, Halifax has had a lot more ambitious building projects like Scotia Square, the Maritime Centre, and now the Nova Centre. All of those would look huge if transplanted to Victoria. The most densely built-up parts of downtown Victoria are built on a very similar scale to the Spring Garden Road area. The big upside in Victoria is that there were no Cogswell-like mistakes to break up the downtown area. The downside, if you consider it a downside, is that it doesn't have much of a city feel.

One big difference between the two cities is that Victoria is more of a capital specifically while Halifax is the "big city" certainly of NS and to some degree for all of Atlantic Canada. A lot of the more urbane stuff is siphoned off to Vancouver while Victoria attracts people who want to live in a smaller centre with a more laid back lifestyle. Halifax gets a bit of everything. A lot of new construction in Halifax is more urban while a lot of the new construction in Victoria has an almost resort-like feel. Victoria has a somewhat older population and attracts a certain number of retirees partly because of its mild climate.

Back when I spent time in both cities a decade or more ago I felt that Victoria was the nicer of the two (in terms of buildings being in better condition, fewer empty storefronts or parking lots, etc.). Now they are about the same, but Halifax has seemed more vibrant to me when I've visited recently, particularly when it comes to nightlife. And this is comparing an October Halifax visit to Victoria around Canada Day. Another different in Halifax is that there is a more expansive inner city with heritage character. Victoria doesn't really have neighbourhoods like the North End, nor does it have a Dartmouth equivalent.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by someone123

The City of Victoria only covers a small land area of around 4-5 kilometres squared centred around downtown.

This sounds like a meaningless cliche but I have often felt that Victoria feels more like a large town while Halifax feels like a small city. For better or worse, Halifax has had a lot more ambitious building projects like Scotia Square, the Maritime Centre, and now the Nova Centre. All of those would look huge if transplanted to Victoria. The most densely built-up parts of downtown Victoria are built on a very similar scale to the Spring Garden Road area. The big upside in Victoria is that there were no Cogswell-like mistakes to break up the downtown area. The downside, if you consider it a downside, is that it doesn't have much of a city feel.

One big difference between the two cities is that Victoria is more of a capital specifically while Halifax is the "big city" certainly of NS and to some degree for all of Atlantic Canada. A lot of the more urbane stuff is siphoned off to Vancouver while Victoria attracts people who want to live in a smaller centre with a more laid back lifestyle. Halifax gets a bit of everything. A lot of new construction in Halifax is more urban while a lot of the new construction in Victoria has an almost resort-like feel. Victoria has a somewhat older population and attracts a certain number of retirees partly because of its mild climate.

Back when I spent time in both cities a decade or more ago I felt that Victoria was the nicer of the two (in terms of buildings being in better condition, fewer empty storefronts or parking lots, etc.). Now they are about the same, but Halifax has seemed more vibrant to me when I've visited recently, particularly when it comes to nightlife. And this is comparing an October Halifax visit to Victoria around Canada Day. Another different in Halifax is that there is a more expansive inner city with heritage character. Victoria doesn't really have neighbourhoods like the North End, nor does it have a Dartmouth equivalent.

Well said. The cities have different characters and both are thriving in their own way.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of new construction in Halifax is more urban while a lot of the new construction in Victoria has an almost resort-like feel. Victoria has a somewhat older population and attracts a certain number of retirees partly because of its mild climate.

Very much this.

And for what it's worth, I was downtown today and it was jammed. No special occasion, and the weather was a bit inclement, and if you were driving, it was sort of a clusterfuck of construction-narrowed streets and encroaching hoardings.

But still, jammed, more than any Canadian city centre I can think of outside the big three.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it is more useful to look at one geographical area over time, like the peninsula, rather than compare different arbitrary areas using measures of density.

The peninsula is interesting because the population density has declined but it is much more developed today than it was in 1951. Households have become wealthier and smaller and there has been a shift from residential to commercial development (with the pendulum now swinging back a bit). Sometimes people will compare the population in 1951 to 2011 and simply conclude that the peninsula has "declined" but that is not a good interpretation. Population density often goes down as an area becomes wealthier.

Exactly. And more important to be clear where we are talking about.
Population in 2011 was 62,900 and a density of 13.15 per acre.
Population in 1961 was 92,511 and a density of 19.34 per acre.
And after slum clearance the population dropped.