[Halifax] City Centre Atlantic | 25 m | 5 fl | Completed

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by sdm

I find you are sterotyping weathly people and south end residents as anti development, which is HARDLY the case.

There are several south end residents (myself included) who are members of this forum and are pro-development, so you definitely don't want to paint with too big a brush Fenwick.

Having said that... I understand your frustration and I agree that it is often (but by no means exclusively) older south end residents who yearn for the "good ol' days" of Halifax before it began to grow.

I am of the current view that, as frustrating as things are sometimes (the comments from Heritage Way being a great example of that), there are a large number of big scale developments currently approved and the focus right now should be on getting as many of those built as possible.

I equally get frustrated by some of the wingnuts that are given a voice in this city, and by the glacial rate of progress sometimes. But... to be fair, there are a surprising number of totally approved developments that have the potential to radically change things and yet seem to never get built (at least yet). Lately we have had several examples of that in the Trinity and Sackville projects. If UG Towers, IP, Discovery Centre, Alexander Keiths Site, Kings Wharf etc were all to get built in the next 5 years, just think of how dramatically that would change things! Not getting some of those already approved projects built would be even more frustrating to me then not getting a new project approved.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

There are several south end residents (myself included) who are members of this forum and are pro-development, so you definitely don't want to paint with too big a brush Fenwick.

Having said that... I understand your frustration and I agree that it is often (but by no means exclusively) older south end residents who yearn for the "good ol' days" of Halifax before it began to grow.

I am of the current view that, as frustrating as things are sometimes (the comments from Heritage Way being a great example of that), there are a large number of big scale developments currently approved and the focus right now should be on getting as many of those built as possible.

I equally get frustrated by some of the wingnuts that are given a voice in this city, and by the glacial rate of progress sometimes. But... to be fair, there are a surprising number of totally approved developments that have the potential to radically change things and yet seem to never get built (at least yet). Lately we have had several examples of that in the Trinity and Sackville projects. If UG Towers, IP, Discovery Centre, Alexander Keiths Site, Kings Wharf etc were all to get built in the next 5 years, just think of how dramatically that would change things! Not getting some of those already approved projects built would be even more frustrating to me then not getting a new project approved.

Thank you for the clarification beyeas. I agree with you completely. I am sure that many in the South End do not fit my stereotype.

Wingnuts; that is the word I was looking for. Initially I had it as wingbats (i.e. dingbats) before I took it out. What is happening to my memory? Thanks again beyeas.

The Alexander Keiths residential tower is one that frustrates me. This could have proceeded years ago as a 27 floor residential tower and would have brought more residents to the downtown core but it was held up until it was no longer feasible to proceed. (I liked the design also). Maybe it will proceed sometime in the future as a shorter tower.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thank you for the clarification beyeas. I agree with you completely. I am sure that many in the South End do not fit my stereotype.

Just to add, many of the anti-development voices come from beyond the South End as well. I personally have met those who live in Dartmouth and the North End, and heard/read comments from many who live in any and all the HRM suburbs. They also run the socio-economic and age spectrum.

Having said that. All your points are spot on about a vocal few obstructing progress without consideration for new development merits, individually or on the whole. Its so knee-jerk its become predictable and sad.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

As the HRM grows in population the South End anti-development groups will become less and less important, especially since they seem intent on limited growth on the Peninsula. As the suburbs and Dartmouth grow, the voices of the South End anti-development groups will eventually become irrelevant. Then maybe the HRM will become a true democracy.

If you want to know where to stereotype the anti development, look no further then the Heritage trust. Look at the list of people on the heritage trust, and do the correaltion to where they work, or party they are ajoined to. I mean a number of the members are dalhouise facility, does that mean dalhouise is anti development?

That is the group you have an issue with, not weathly south end residents.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

As the HRM grows in population the South End anti-development groups will become less and less important, especially since they seem intent on limited growth on the Peninsula. As the suburbs and Dartmouth grow, the voices of the South End anti-development groups will eventually become irrelevant. Then maybe the HRM will become a true democracy.

You are totally off base... the actual people that are causing the problems aren't even taken seriously by the wealthy of the South End.

The people doing it are the Heritage nuts, who are maybe upper middle class at best... the problem is that they are now politically connected (via NDP) and they have too much time on their hands. (Keep in mind I am pro-heritage preservation, but I am against not building towers because of proximity to old structures.)

In general, I see every group in HRM as being anti-development... if you want me to list the worst offenders, here we go:

1) Heritage Nazis (mostly older in age)
2) Friends of various "places" (see number 1)
3) City Councillors who are ignorant or have personal biases
4) Enivronmental Bandwagon (mix of different ages, may contradict themselves by being pro-heritage as well)
5) NIMBY families who don't understand the issues or have been misinformed by groups 1-4
6) Affordable housing advocates who may want developers to rediculously incorporate cheap units into their private developments

The sum total of this is what you describe as the anti-development behavior. If I left a group of the list, let me know.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

You are totally off base... the actual people that are causing the problems aren't even taken seriously by the wealthy of the South End.

The people doing it are the Heritage nuts, who are maybe upper middle class at best... the problem is that they are now politically connected (via NDP) and they have too much time on their hands. (Keep in mind I am pro-heritage preservation, but I am against not building towers because of proximity to old structures.)

In general, I see every group in HRM as being anti-development... if you want me to list the worst offenders, here we go:

1) Heritage Nazis (mostly older in age)
2) Friends of various "places" (see number 1)
3) City Councillors who are ignorant or have personal biases
4) Enivronmental Bandwagon (mix of different ages, may contradict themselves by being pro-heritage as well)
5) NIMBY families who don't understand the issues or have been misinformed by groups 1-4
6) Affordable housing advocates who may want developers to rediculously incorporate cheap units into their private developments

The sum total of this is what you describe as the anti-development behavior. If I left a group of the list, let me know.

While I get your point and can agree with these somewhat exaggerated generalizations, the last one - affordable housing advocates - is out of place.

Ignoring more radical groups like the Halifax Coalition against Poverty, affordable housing is really misunderstood in this province. There is no reason why affordable, non-market housing cannot be included in large developments. I would argue that it actually makes the city a much more interesting place, and can work to make it safer, more vibrant, and even more economically sustainable by encouraging mixed-income growth.

The key is providing incentives to developers, such as social-bonus zoning like they do in Vancouver. They offer developers more height or Floor Area Ratio (or Floor Space Index if you prefer) for inclusion of social housing. Similar schemes can be found in other cities, but in general isn't a standard practice in Canada. On the other hand, in the Netherlands, A full 30% of all units in new developments must be allocated for social housing. In return the city offers various incentives, often drastic cuts in the cost of land, since all is controlled by the city. So maybe this model isn't so doable here, but my point is that there are options and that affordable housing and advocates for it aren't a hinderance to development. If we do things right and use a policy of social bonus zoning (which I thought was a part of HRMbyDesign, but I'm not certain and don't know the details), advocating for social housing can actually be advocating for more height!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

While I get your point and can agree with these somewhat exaggerated generalizations, the last one - affordable housing advocates - is out of place.

Ignoring more radical groups like the Halifax Coalition against Poverty, affordable housing is really misunderstood in this province. There is no reason why affordable, non-market housing cannot be included in large developments. I would argue that it actually makes the city a much more interesting place, and can work to make it safer, more vibrant, and even more economically sustainable by encouraging mixed-income growth.

The key is providing incentives to developers, such as social-bonus zoning like they do in Vancouver. They offer developers more height or Floor Area Ratio (or Floor Space Index if you prefer) for inclusion of social housing. Similar schemes can be found in other cities, but in general isn't a standard practice in Canada. On the other hand, in the Netherlands, A full 30% of all units in new developments must be allocated for social housing. In return the city offers various incentives, often drastic cuts in the cost of land, since all is controlled by the city. So maybe this model isn't so doable here, but my point is that there are options and that affordable housing and advocates for it aren't a hinderance to development. If we do things right and use a policy of social bonus zoning (which I thought was a part of HRMbyDesign, but I'm not certain and don't know the details), advocating for social housing can actually be advocating for more height!

But we don't have these policies in place! There are no real incentives that I am aware of! I agree with you ultimately.

Without these incentives, our city is askng private business the equivalent of cutting various groups a deal. How do our councillors make suggestions on these matters without offering anything to the developer???? They obviously don't understand basic economics.

Its like walking into a store and getting a better price because you make less... but if the private business owner isn't compensated, then it doesn't make sense. Its basic revenue - expenses = profit

I knew my comments would produce a reaction... but its still true that these groups ultimately do have an anti-private development element because they certainly aren't making any policy changes that I am aware of.

Changes have to be made to the public policy, not forcing private businesses to do things that make no logical sense. That is the difference between here and the Netherlands. Check out the Polder Model (not in terms of the labour market, but in terms consensus building) ... its light years ahead of the small minded methodology in HRM, on the parts of housing advocates, council, and private industry.

I'm soo down with affordable housing... if it is done correctly and benefits the working poor...

[Phalanx]

Re: 'Environmental bandwagon'
I think that's going a bit far as well. I consider myself pro-environment, and pro-development. I'd rather build 'up' than 'out'... sprawl is environmentally costly, inefficient, and just plain ugly. Arguing for the protection of urban greenspace is not necessarily the same as being anti-development. Those who do argue development on a purely environmental basis are in the minority.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

But we don't have these policies in place! There are no real incentives that I am aware of! I agree with you ultimately.

Its like walking into a store and getting a better price because you make less... but if the private business owner isn't compensated, then it doesn't make sense. Its basic revenue - expenses = profit

This was sort of my point. There are policies - such as social bonus zoning - that can be easily implemented. On the otherhand, models like those in the Netherlands, while attractive are built on a policy foundation that we won't see here in my life time.

But you are right, many of mandates of the advocacy groups are counter-productive and work against one another. In addition, social housing is a provincial mandate (with little or no leadership or vision), despite the fact that nearly any decisions affect cities. But this is where the city needs to step-up, and propose simple incentives (which in the case of social bonus zoning cost nothing) that start to force some of these groups to compromise. Right now absolutely no one is getting what they want.

Anyway another discussion. City Centre Atlantic is a great proposal, something different, interesting and would be a great addition to the area. As others have said, and arguments against are weak - blocking views, wind, blank wall, etc.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Re: 'Environmental bandwagon'
I think that's going a bit far as well. I consider myself pro-environment, and pro-development. I'd rather build 'up' than 'out'... sprawl is environmentally costly, inefficient, and just plain ugly. Arguing for the protection of urban greenspace is not necessarily the same as being anti-development. Those who do argue development on a purely environmental basis are in the minority.

I completely agree with you on those points and consider myself "pro-environment" (which seems redundant because I would hope everybody cares about the natural environment). I hate urban sprawl, I love public transportation, etc, etc. But I try to get all of the facts and not just blindly be for or against anything. (See those against the Bayers Rd widening, which ultimately improved public transportation.)


However, it would be ignorant to not believe that people will latch onto certain causes or be against certain things without knowing the issue(s). This is why I said bandwagon... and didn't just write "environmentalists"

I'm even suprised you responded to that and it underscores that people need to shake their perspectives on the world or at least take things lightly... I'm open minded to all of these groups opinions, but more often than not the arguments they make against various developments cannot be substantiated. However, most of these groups will not accept anything but their own dogmatic perspectives.

Nowhere did I make the argument that people who care about the environment are in the majority of those who are anti-development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Anyway another discussion. City Centre Atlantic is a great proposal, something different, interesting and would be a great addition to the area. As others have said, and arguments against are weak - blocking views, wind, blank wall, etc.

The density is great and its on major bus routes!

[planarchy]

As a last point in respect to social bonus zoning, these policies (or policies that allow for such incentives) already exist:

BILL NO. 181 (as passed, with amendments)

5 The Act is further amended by adding immediately after Section 254 the following Sections:

254A (1) Where a municipal planning strategy so provides, a land-use by-law may provide for incentive or bonus zoning agreements respecting the HRM by Design Downtown Plan Area.

as well:

(2) A public hearing is not required before approving an incentive or bonus zoning agreement or an amendment to an incentive or bonus zoning agreement

And taken from a HRMbyDesign doc:

Bonus Zoning Program
The bonus zoning program provides applicants for
development with an opportunity to achieve
additional height above that of the pre-bonus
maximum in exchange for a negotiated public benefit
to HRM. For example, a developer in a 21.5 m height
precinct could potentially achieve 30% more height
(up to a post-bonus maximum of 27.5 m) by
providing the municipality with one or more public
benefits described in the Plan, to be negotiated by the
Development Officer with input from the Design
Review Committee.


So, the question is, policies are in place - why aren't we using them? In theory, couldn't you obtain a development permit by proposing a shorter building, then once approved, throw in a childcare centre space on the ground floor and add 30% to the height without a public hearing? Ok, so maybe not this simple, but why isn't this ever mentioned by the city or developers?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

As a last point in respect to social bonus zoning, these policies (or policies that allow for such incentives) already exist:

BILL NO. 181 (as passed, with amendments)

5 The Act is further amended by adding immediately after Section 254 the following Sections:

254A (1) Where a municipal planning strategy so provides, a land-use by-law may provide for incentive or bonus zoning agreements respecting the HRM by Design Downtown Plan Area.

as well:

(2) A public hearing is not required before approving an incentive or bonus zoning agreement or an amendment to an incentive or bonus zoning agreement

And taken from a HRMbyDesign doc:

Bonus Zoning Program
The bonus zoning program provides applicants for
development with an opportunity to achieve
additional height above that of the pre-bonus
maximum in exchange for a negotiated public benefit
to HRM. For example, a developer in a 21.5 m height
precinct could potentially achieve 30% more height
(up to a post-bonus maximum of 27.5 m) by
providing the municipality with one or more public
benefits described in the Plan, to be negotiated by the
Development Officer with input from the Design
Review Committee.


So, the question is, policies are in place - why aren't we using them? In theory, couldn't you obtain a development permit by proposing a shorter building, then once approved, throw in a childcare centre space on the ground floor and add 30% to the height without a public hearing? Ok, so maybe not this simple, but why isn't this ever mentioned by the city or developers?

Great find!! These should be e-mailed to developers. I like your point... if you proposed a 10 story tower and then incorporated the incentive requirements you could make it a 13 story tower without public hearing. (If this is how it works).

I wonder if the city centre atlantic developers are aware of this... it would give some badly needed height to this development.

[Dmajackson]

According to the Chronicle Herald the public hearing will be held at the Regional Council meeting on March 30th.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

According to the Chronicle Herald the public hearing will be held at the Regional Council meeting on March 30th.

It listed on the City Council agenda for tomorrow:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0rcAgenda.html

[Dmajackson]

Who wants to start taking bets on how long before the Pacey's or HT step forward claiming this will be the end of historic Halifax as we know it?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Who wants to start taking bets on how long before the Pacey's or HT step forward claiming this will be the end of historic Halifax as we know it?

Hasn't happened yet -- but all the residents and speakers so far are saying this is the end of the world as we know it. Lawen said the residents would not even speak to him.

[Dmajackson]

All but the current speaker live in the building and she was the only positive one ... I guess its up to Council to decide upon what they've read and ignore the sunlight wind problems that the studies say were negliable.

[sdm]

i doubt this will have problems getting through.

How many council are there tonight? is there enough for the vote to be counted?

[Dmajackson]

I think Kelly just said the motion was carried ... can anybody confirm this?