Phil Pacey At It Again

[Keith P.]

This from Sunday's Herald:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/975010.html

"Lots of studies have showed that the best way to protect urban neighbourhoods is to have (bylaws) stay in place so people have some certainty, so that if somebody is considering buy a home in one of these neighbourhoods, that they can be reasonably sure there’s still going to be sunlight on the backyard for the kids to play in, and that the neighbourhood won’t be changing drastically for a number of years," co-organizer Phil Pacey said in an interview.
...

Mr. Pacey cited three recent proposals as examples of developers asking for changes. One calls for a 21-storey tower adjacent to the Brewery Market, where development is restricted to low-rise buildings; there’s a proposal for a 30-storey development for the Dartmouth Marine Slips, where the bylaw only allows for four or five storeys; and the third is for a 19-storey building at the corner of South Park and Brenton streets.

So he doesn't want anything over 4 storeys on the peninsula, but I'm sure he would also oppose any kind of road infrastructure upgrade that would be required to get people living off the peninsula into the downtown. Nice.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

City’s growth concerns group

By KELLY SHIERS Staff Reporter
Sun. Oct 28 - 5:31 AM

About 100 people at a public meeting Saturday heard speakers raise alarm bells about future development in traditional downtown neighbourhoods of the Halifax region.

"Lots of studies have showed that the best way to protect urban neighbourhoods is to have (bylaws) stay in place so people have some certainty, so that if somebody is considering buy a home in one of these neighbourhoods, that they can be reasonably sure there’s still going to be sunlight on the backyard for the kids to play in, and that the neighbourhood won’t be changing drastically for a number of years," co-organizer Phil Pacey said in an interview.

But Mr. Pacey said developers don’t accept current policies that limit height and size and consider issues such as wind, shadows and parkland. Instead, they routinely seek changes to allow their projects to go ahead.

"You get into this situation you have now where developers are asking for changes to the strategy all the time. It’s become almost an ad hoc thing and you don’t know where you are," said the president of Heritage Trust Nova Scotia, which unsuccessfully led a fight to stop approval of a 27-storey project slated for the downtown core.

Mr. Pacey cited three recent proposals as examples of developers asking for changes. One calls for a 21-storey tower adjacent to the Brewery Market, where development is restricted to low-rise buildings; there’s a proposal for a 30-storey development for the Dartmouth Marine Slips, where the bylaw only allows for four or five storeys; and the third is for a 19-storey building at the corner of South Park and Brenton streets.

"There’s a lot of vacant land that could be developed, but it’s important it’s developed in a way that complements and supports the existing neighbourhoods (and) doesn’t compete with existing neighbourhoods," he said.

Paul Erickson, who sat on heritage advisory committees for Halifax and for the amalgamated Halifax Regional Municipality, told the crowd that HRM by Design has presented a sweeping vision that promotes big, high-rise buildings for the downtown area.

But he said these kinds of buildings "suck people inside" and "work against street life." He also said they hurt existing businesses and pointed, as an example, to the construction of Scotia Square as a major cause of the economic decline of Gottingen Street, where so many businesses were once located.

"We’re better off with the regulatory status quo," Mr. Erickson said.

Mr. Pacey said the public hearing is the first sponsored by six community groups that came together to present 20 speakers and provide a forum for ideas and comments.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

'If you bulldoze your heritage, you become just anywhere'
Heritage Trust hopes to bring its own ideas to HRM By Design

BETH JOHNSTON
The Daily News


Halifax's historic qualities give it a "greatness" that must be protected with historically sensitive design and planning, a local historian told a public meeting yesterday.

"If you bulldoze your heritage, you become just anywhere," Elizabeth Pacey told about 100 people who filled Saint Patrick's Church Hall for a Heritage Trust-led gathering to discuss the impact of development on the city's urban core.

Pacey, who wants the entire urban core designated a heritage conservation area, wasn't alone yesterday in her desire to see the construction of modern skyscrapers stop.

Heritage Trust president Phil Pacey is hopeful yesterday's meeting will offer some new ideas to bring to the discussions of the members of the urban design task force.

HRM by Design - a study commissioned to address the regional centre's urban sprawl, development and design concerns - drew record turnouts last month. But the pro-development tone of the first three of four public meetings wasn't what architect David Garrett heard yesterday.

"We've heard some very knowledgeable, very passionate statements here today, but unfortunately we didn't hear them at the forum," Garrett, who's also a member of the urban design task force, said.

"I am glad that they're doing this because I don't feel that this community has been represented in the process this far."

Happy medium

Garrett hopes the process will find a happy medium between those who want "high buildings and rampant development" and those who want the status quo.

"I too feel that high buildings are the SUVs of the architectural world, but also people don't want to see things just as they are because I think 'just as they are' isn't working," he said.

After canvassing the regional centre (meaning the peninsula and Dartmouth within the Circumferential Highway), the HRM by Design team has set out to establish concrete urban design guidelines that will add clarity to the development approvals process and establish a roadmap for growth.

It presented 10 Big Moves for the future of downtown Halifax to the public, and used 3-D computerized models to show three development scenarios.

Phil Pacey suggests the plan's recommendations - such as wider sidewalks and more trees - shouldn't overshadow the team's development suggestions.

"It's an effort to allow really tall buildings where tall buildings aren't allowed. That's really the central issue," he said.

Garrett hopes even more people bring their concerns to the next forum on Nov. 27.

[GUB]

I like when Pacey compares the prospect of additional highrises with Scotia Square (sucking people in). What a foolish comparison to make. Eveyone know's Scotia Square is a mess and I seriously doubt that kind of project will be repeated anytime soon. This man is kind of a dork.

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

City’s growth concerns group

By KELLY SHIERS Staff Reporter
Sun. Oct 28 - 5:31 AM

About 100 people at a public meeting Saturday heard speakers raise alarm bells about future development in traditional downtown neighbourhoods of the Halifax region.

"Lots of studies have showed that the best way to protect urban neighbourhoods is to have (bylaws) stay in place so people have some certainty, so that if somebody is considering buy a home in one of these neighbourhoods, that they can be reasonably sure there’s still going to be sunlight on the backyard for the kids to play in, and that the neighbourhood won’t be changing drastically for a number of years," co-organizer Phil Pacey said in an interview.

But Mr. Pacey said developers don’t accept current policies that limit height and size and consider issues such as wind, shadows and parkland. Instead, they routinely seek changes to allow their projects to go ahead.

"You get into this situation you have now where developers are asking for changes to the strategy all the time. It’s become almost an ad hoc thing and you don’t know where you are," said the president of Heritage Trust Nova Scotia, which unsuccessfully led a fight to stop approval of a 27-storey project slated for the downtown core.

Mr. Pacey cited three recent proposals as examples of developers asking for changes. One calls for a 21-storey tower adjacent to the Brewery Market, where development is restricted to low-rise buildings; there’s a proposal for a 30-storey development for the Dartmouth Marine Slips, where the bylaw only allows for four or five storeys; and the third is for a 19-storey building at the corner of South Park and Brenton streets.

"There’s a lot of vacant land that could be developed, but it’s important it’s developed in a way that complements and supports the existing neighbourhoods (and) doesn’t compete with existing neighbourhoods," he said.

Paul Erickson, who sat on heritage advisory committees for Halifax and for the amalgamated Halifax Regional Municipality, told the crowd that HRM by Design has presented a sweeping vision that promotes big, high-rise buildings for the downtown area.

But he said these kinds of buildings "suck people inside" and "work against street life." He also said they hurt existing businesses and pointed, as an example, to the construction of Scotia Square as a major cause of the economic decline of Gottingen Street, where so many businesses were once located.

"We’re better off with the regulatory status quo," Mr. Erickson said.

Mr. Pacey said the public hearing is the first sponsored by six community groups that came together to present 20 speakers and provide a forum for ideas and comments.

[Haliguy]

These people are looking more and more foolish all the time.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Why is this a news story??? Seriously!!! Who is he of more importance than anybody to have an opinion on this!!!!!!!!!!!

I am furious to see this kind of thing. Why can't our opinion be heard? Why is this guy getting room in the paper?

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

These people are looking more and more foolish all the time.

I don't think they're foolish but they are definetly out of touch with what the majority of the city seem to want. It's tough for them to present meaningful ideas when they don't want to compromise on anything.

It is foolish to keep bringing up Toronto, Vancouver, and New York etc. whenever a tall building is proposed. We could let developers build whatever they wanted in this city for two decades and we'd never have a skyline like those cities. We're just not a big enough city. That type of development pressure doesn't exist.

[Haliguy]

They are nothing but obstructionist. Why don't they work with the developers to make sure old and new can work together instead of head butting against them.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

They are nothing but obstructionist. Why don't they work with the developers to make sure old and new can work together instead of head butting against them.

What they don't realize is by the heritage trust doing what its doing, its not working for them, its working against them. The more they try to fight the developers, the less credibility they have, and in turn the more time they spend obstructing, the less protection heritage properties that actually need it are getting. If they would just take a step back, there would be more heritage structures, as well as modern structures in this city. Their creating a losing situation not just for themselves, but everyone else.

[skyscraper_1]

^Perhaps we need to create our own historical preservation group to protect heritage buildings while the heritage trust is off obstructing everything.

[Jonovision]

I find it funny how they talk like their demands would have no consequences. Sure it would be nice to have a downtown of lowrise buildings, but not at the cost of the rest of the city and sprawling suburbs. If we were to have their ideal lowrise downtown, then development would be pushed farther and farther out into the suburbs. We would see more and more land being eaten up and traffic problems would be just one of many concerns. Also with the ideal lowrise downtown, demand would be so high for the units that prices would go through the roof and only the elite, rich would be able to afford to live and work in the downtown.

I still don't think they realize that if tall buildings are built with good urban design principles, then they become a seamless part of the urban fabric and contribute to an exciting street life.

[someone123]

Bulldozing heritage? Which of the proposals mentioned by Pacey involves this? The only one is the tower on South Park which would replace a couple of small, slightly tired looking houses and a big chunk of grey lot. The brewery tower would replace a propane tank and the United Gulf site used to be a parking garage.

Pacey is arguing against straw men.

His claims that people want "stability" are also absurd. These developments are happening in the urban core, where growth has occurred for 250+ years. If you want a nice yard for your children to play in, why would you buy on, say, Hollis, not that there are any single unit detached dwellings in that area in the first place? Where are the sunny backyards around the other sites? There are none around United Gulf, and South Park street already has big buildings that cast shadows.

As for the hundred people at the meeting, it's easy to find people who are self-interested and would like to limit the property rights of others to protect something they never really had a right to in the first place. That's why we have the silly "four storey everywhere" maximum heights in a city with hundreds of thousands of people and dozens of highrises already.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I still don't think they realize that if tall buildings are built with good urban design principles, then they become a seamless part of the urban fabric and contribute to an exciting street life.

I don't think there is even much interest in discussing the possible merits of skyscrapers in some circles. For many in this city, not just heritage buffs, big buildings are horrible monsters that resemble the Maritime Centre, Scotia Square, and Fenwick. It's frustrating but until something nice is built there is going to be a lot of uneasy people when you bring up the words density and height.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

I don't think there is even much interest in discussing the possible merits of skyscrapers in some circles. For many in this city, not just heritage buffs, big buildings are horrible monsters that resemble the Maritime Centre, Scotia Square, and Fenwick. It's frustrating but until something nice is built there is going to be a lot of uneasy people when you bring up the words density and height.

And those people have obviously never travelled outside of the maritimes.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by someone123

His claims that people want "stability" are also absurd. These developments are happening in the urban core, where growth has occurred for 250+ years. If you want a nice yard for your children to play in, why would you buy on, say, Hollis, not that there are any single unit detached dwellings in that area in the first place? Where are the sunny backyards around the other sites? There are none around United Gulf, and South Park street already has big buildings that cast shadows.

The core has been in decline for so long that I think people have gotten use to a sense of stability. Most of the worst decay has been confined to the area around Gottingen St. where many people might drive by only a couple of times a year. Out of sight, out of mind. There's never been a sense the city has been in trouble, except for some concern over Barrington St. every now and again. This development pressure is new and many people don't really see the need for more density. If it ain't broke don't fix it, right?

Some neighbourhoods are very stable. The South and West ends are almost exclusively zoned single-family residential. There's also high rates of home ownership and a largely middle-upper middle class demographic. Most of the currently desireable residential neighbourhoods on the peninsula will change very little under the MPS and HRMbyDesign. They'll stay like they are now, single family residential. Whether that is a good thing is very much debatable.

I think inevitably you will run into areas where tall buildings are desireable but there will be angry single-family home owners next door. The streets which front the Commons are being built up and I imagine that won't sit well with those living around Robie and Cunard if it continues. I agree completly though that downtown and the immediatly adjacent neighbourhoods don't present those issues.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

And those people have obviously never travelled outside of the maritimes.

Thats my thinking as well..these people must go to other cities and see it isn't a problem.

[Amanita]

I remember talking to a friend of mine who likes the talk radio shows- She said that the host of one of them was initially against the Twisted sisters, but changed his mind after of all things, a visit to Toronto!
He was impressed by all the new buildings- the vibrant architecture and inspiring designs- modern, daring designs that didn't feel obligated to be overgrown brick boxes. Seeing that made him want such cool new things for his own city.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Well duh... Halifax's isolation definitely keeps people in the dark as to how good other places have really become. Toronto has come along way and is very vibrant now.

I wish we could make everybody in the city take a little trip somewhere OUTSIDE of the maritimes... do we not want to be included in whats going on in our country and the world?

[someone123]

I don't think people in Halifax are more ignorant, I think the ignorant people are louder.

In many ways larger cities can be much more insular than Halifax is. Furthermore, cities that are easier to travel between tend to be more similar. You could drive around all kinds of towns in Ontario and the Midwest and not really see much. To have a wide perspective you have to travel to places that are actually different and you have to be able to appreciate what you see.

[Canadian_Bacon]

^I agree.

People that support these kinds of development's don't seem to speek up enough, instead its the people that are against these projects that seem to have the bigger mouths and talk louder.

Then when you have meetings, people that don't want these projects, show up and say how they don't want it, and then the politians think thats what the rest of the populace is thinking because people that are for it, don't show up. People that want these projects don't seem to speek up enough.

Then you have radio hosts and other personalities that have a big audience and people respect them and when they say they hate something... their audience and "fans" seem to go along with them.