[Halifax] Aurora & Eventide (1540 Carlton) | ? m | 8 & 6 FL | U/C

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Reading the case details on the halifax.ca website - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case18270Details.html - the following statement seems somewhat misleading:
There are various municipally registered heritage buildings in the area including the Garden Crest Apartment which directly abuts the subject property and is also a provincially registered heritage property.


However, looking at the Bing Maps Bird's Eye view there is already a highrise between the Garden Crest Apartment at 1544 Summer Street and the new 20 storey proposal. I took a screen capture which illustrates this below. It is also noteworthy that only the facade of the Garden Crest Apartment building is original (http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/GardenCrest.htm).


This looks like a very desirable location. So I think that if it gets approved there is a good chance of it being built in the near future.

The Medical Arts building just up Spring Garden Rd from Summer Gardens. This site has lots of potential. It is a fair sized lot and this building is small in comparison to what has been built lately. I wonder if anything is planned for this site. This is across from Spring Garden Terrace which fronts the new tower proposed behind it.

[Dmajackson]

D7&8PAC will be making a recommendation on this project Monday (January 27th, 2014).

Case 18270

If you have a moment scroll down to the last few pages and read some of the PIM comments they are quite entertaining!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

D7&8PAC will be making a recommendation on this project Monday (January 27th, 2014).

Case 18270

If you have a moment scroll down to the last few pages and read some of the PIM comments they are quite entertaining!

Oh, FFS. Why, DM? Why did you tell me to look?

It's just utterly depressing. I swear, that these people are trained and receive talking points. Because for every new development in this city higher than 3 storeys, you get the very same complaints EVERY single time.

You're going to block the view from my kitchen. You're going to take away my afternoon sun. I'm too old and this will new building will make me sick. Me. Me. Me. Me. Wind. Traffic. Height. Blah.

Q: DM - do you think this will go forward? I think 20 storeys is more than reasonable for that area. I would propose more height, actually. 30 storeys could work there easily.

[alps]

Funny how all these residents of neighbouring 16 storey buildings are convinced 20 storeys is the tipping point toward neighbourhood ruin.

Rosemary Marr, Embassy Towers, explained that in 1970 she was involved in planning for the south end and coordinated with the residents and City Planning and was told that if apartment or office buildings were built, that they will not be permitted to go higher than four storeys.

???

The comment from "Alan Purdy, Garden Crest" seems particularly absurd. He goes after the planning officer personally for not providing "the negative aspects of this [project]". Um, she just gave you all the facts to interpret yourself; if you came away with a positive impression of the building maybe you should reconsider your opposition to it.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by alps

Funny how all these residents of neighbouring 16 storey buildings are convinced 20 storeys is the tipping point toward neighbourhood ruin.

[Dmajackson]

This should be approved fairly easily. It should go to community council where there are 6 voices. As per normal the local councillor (Waye Mason) will probably vote "no" to win more local support, Watts does have problems with heights but the other four will vote it into approval.

Personally my pick for height for this site would of been slightly lower (150-175' vs 210') but I am perfectly fine with this proposal as is. I like how SGR & South Park has the downtown "cliff" look to it. All of the towers just stop suddenly along the Public Gardens/Victoria Park and it truly makes it a clear entrance to the CBD. Having 12-18 stories west of this keeps the impressiveness of the "cliff" while also keeping densities high (this proposal is 400 ppl/acre).

[ILoveHalifax]

I would really prefer that they were building 40 stories. It is time to get over this whole height BS.

[ILoveHalifax]

The dear lady who will have the view from her kitchen window blocked could get all kinds of new views. Maybe it is time for a set of binoculars.

[Antigonish]

Dennis Ryan, Garden Crest, commented that this is going to be very intrusive as the proposed
building is right behind him and he is at the top. He noticed during the presentation that at 3:00
pm, most days, he is going to lose the sun and that the building is a weird sort of dimension and
it looks a lot smaller than what it is, that it is twice as high[...]

Boo fucking hoo.

Sorry, these comments are making my blood boil like a cauldron over a fire.

[halifaxboyns]

As a practicing urban planner, these comments don't surprise me at all. I recently did an open house for a project in Sunnyside area of Calgary for an eight storey building (EIGHT!!) and they came out with the same comments. It's like someone wrote this all up in a bible for nimby's.

The one thing I've learned is that people don't take well to change at all but as planners we often set ourselves up to be the punching bag. I did an interview recently where part of the process was to describe how I'd review a file, how I would pick the team members to review the file and the public process. I was fairly clear that I didn't believe in the format that the planner presents and then the public contributes because it leads to a very combative process. I'm more of an open house believer because you can engage with people one on one - you defuse the power of the vocal minority.

Although with the open house in Sunnyside, I knew who the vocal minority were and they still managed to come at me as a group. But when there is only 3-4 of them; it's still easier to deal with than say 30 or 40. Personally, if I had been the planner for the file I would've done an open house. This way, when people came to me and expressed concerns about sunlight loss and view loss I could say to them "sorry, but these are not protected on private property" and it wouldn't send the entire room for their torches and pitch forks. It would have defused people's arguments upfront...which is what I think planners need to do more of. But that's just my perspective as someone practicing...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

As a practicing urban planner, these comments don't surprise me at all. I recently did an open house for a project in Sunnyside area of Calgary for an eight storey building (EIGHT!!) and they came out with the same comments. It's like someone wrote this all up in a bible for nimby's.

The one thing I've learned is that people don't take well to change at all but as planners we often set ourselves up to be the punching bag. I did an interview recently where part of the process was to describe how I'd review a file, how I would pick the team members to review the file and the public process. I was fairly clear that I didn't believe in the format that the planner presents and then the public contributes because it leads to a very combative process. I'm more of an open house believer because you can engage with people one on one - you defuse the power of the vocal minority.

Although with the open house in Sunnyside, I knew who the vocal minority were and they still managed to come at me as a group. But when there is only 3-4 of them; it's still easier to deal with than say 30 or 40. Personally, if I had been the planner for the file I would've done an open house. This way, when people came to me and expressed concerns about sunlight loss and view loss I could say to them "sorry, but these are not protected on private property" and it wouldn't send the entire room for their torches and pitch forks. It would have defused people's arguments upfront...which is what I think planners need to do more of. But that's just my perspective as someone practicing...

No one has a right to the afternoon sun. No one has a right to the view from their kitchen. No one has a right to the airspace over adjacent properties or other people's properties. No one has a right to be free from the wind.

Amen.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

No one has a right to the afternoon sun. No one has a right to the view from their kitchen. No one has a right to the airspace over adjacent properties or other people's properties. No one has a right to be free from the wind.

Amen.

Most of those complaints are nothing but hot wind...(air)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Most of those complaints are nothing but hot wind...(air)

You're absolutely right that NIMBY complaints are present in any city in Canada. I hear about NIMBYs in Toronto, Edmonton, certainly Vancouver, Montreal, etc, etc.

It just seems to me, that NIMBYs tend to win the day much more often in Halifax than in comparable urban environments in Canada.

I might be wrong, but this seems to be one of the factors that accounts for the face we spent TWO decades with ZERO downtown development and NEAR ZERO (comparatively speaking) downtown public sector investment.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You're absolutely right that NIMBY complaints are present in any city in Canada. I hear about NIMBYs in Toronto, Edmonton, certainly Vancouver, Montreal, etc, etc.

It just seems to me, that NIMBYs tend to win the day much more often in Halifax than in comparable urban environments in Canada.

I might be wrong, but this seems to be one of the factors that accounts for the face we spent TWO decades with ZERO downtown development and NEAR ZERO (comparatively speaking) downtown public sector investment.

Oh, I dunno. I think it's partially the media over-covering NIMBY-ism in Halifax.

I can't speak for Calgary 'cause I haven't lived there in a long time, but in Toronto, there are entire neighbourhoods controlled by NIMBYs (Forest Hill and the Beaches come to mind). Hell, a small crew of neighbourhood activists freaking out about a six-storey condo successfully got a new, hyper-local, more restrictive planning document approved for just their downtown ward with the support of the local councillor.

From what I've heard, NIMBYism definitely had something to do with the until-recent stagnation of the inner city in Halifax, but probably a so-so economy were more to blame. The economy is doing decently now, planning has improved, and the city--which was late-to-the-game with the whole North American inner-city revitalization thing--has gotten on track there as well.

It doesn't help when reporters go out to information meetings and come back with quotes from Joe Ignorant, and don't contextualize them.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

No one has a right to the afternoon sun. No one has a right to the view from their kitchen. No one has a right to the airspace over adjacent properties or other people's properties. No one has a right to be free from the wind.

Perhaps time and energy could be saved during these public complaining sessions if they began with this important information.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Perhaps time and energy could be saved during these public complaining sessions if they began with this important information.

As a planner - this is something we as a profession (I think struggle with). We have to recognize that in discretionary planning processes, people have a right to express an opinion. I can think that opinion, based on my experience, is ill informed or nimby, but they still have a right (by process to express it).

My first instinct is to do exactly what Ryejay suggests - get that information out there and stop it right away. But then you may create a thousand other questions or worse, they may get on to an issue that really isn't one. They could make the case that sunlight issue isn't really that, it's a building massing issue and then you get into more complex debates about building design...

The fact is you won't ever get perfect public engagement and people will always complain. The example I gave earlier about the eight storey building - that was in a community that had wide involvement in the creation of the Transit Oriented Development Plan. Yet, people still oppose it and don't like it. At that engagement, several people said 'well it's not my plan'. Well, my response was to ask them if they went to the public hearing (which they didn't) and tell them - well, too bad because it is your plan because Council approved it. It's like people who complain about the government and don't vote - if you don't go speak up at council and say I don't like it; then too bad. And if you do, GREAT! At least you spoke, but if they didn't agree with you and vote the plan in...then it should stop there.

Ultimately, people don't accept change well - that's just the nature of humanity sometimes and that feeling of entitlement.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Oh, I dunno. I think it's partially the media over-covering NIMBY-ism in Halifax.

I can't speak for Calgary 'cause I haven't lived there in a long time, but in Toronto, there are entire neighbourhoods controlled by NIMBYs (Forest Hill and the Beaches come to mind). Hell, a small crew of neighbourhood activists freaking out about a six-storey condo successfully got a new, hyper-local, more restrictive planning document approved for just their downtown ward with the support of the local councillor.

From what I've heard, NIMBYism definitely had something to do with the until-recent stagnation of the inner city in Halifax, but probably a so-so economy were more to blame. The economy is doing decently now, planning has improved, and the city--which was late-to-the-game with the whole North American inner-city revitalization thing--has gotten on track there as well.

It doesn't help when reporters go out to information meetings and come back with quotes from Joe Ignorant, and don't contextualize them.

All of that has the ring of truth, but then there's the reality-- Toronto has a lot of ultra high density development and height, so it seems, NIMBY is not a more general force to stop development, beyond certain spaces and areas.

In fact, I wouldn't complain if there were NIMBY neighbourhood here or there in Halifax, where NIMBYs rule with an iron fist.

But the problem with Halifax, is that they leave their neighbourhood and come downtown and hurl their NIMBYisms at downtown highrise developments, their height, wind, traffic, blah, blah, blah.

Imagine a debate about at 23 storey height limit at Bay and King in Toronto? Yonge and Bloor? In Toronto, the debates happen when you propose 80+ floors, like the Gehry/Mirvish proposal at King's West.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Forumers in Halifax... can you help get this pushed through?

This has to stop. There are no arguments made, just b/s, again and again.

A development like this is crucial for "mid" town density.

It needs to happen, for the future of the city. Please try to crush the opposition, they are so short sighted.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

All of that has the ring of truth, but then there's the reality-- Toronto has a lot of ultra high density development and height, so it seems, NIMBY is not a more general force to stop development, beyond certain spaces and areas.


But the problem with Halifax, is that they leave their neighbourhood and come downtown and hurl their NIMBYisms at downtown highrise developments, their height, wind, traffic, blah, blah, blah.

Imagine a debate about at 23 storey height limit at Bay and King in Toronto? Yonge and Bloor? In Toronto, the debates happen when you propose 80+ floors, like the Gehry/Mirvish proposal at King's West.

Honestly , it happens downtown too. Neighbourhood opposition killed a 20-some storey project recently at Church and Wellesley, and another at College and Spadina (basically downtown) looks likely to fall to neighbourhood opposition. (That Gehry/Mirvish project, as well, looks to be in a fair bit of trouble,and is sparking a sort of Skye-like debate.)

The NIMBYs will always be with us. My feelings are twofold:

A: We should start worrying when good projects get cancelled due to NIMBYism, That doesn't seem to be happening much.

B: There is value in listening to the general public—even if their opinions aren't very articulate and some of them are ridiculous, there's value in going to the general public. NIMBYs, after all, are what stopped the city's waterfront expressway that would've plowed through what has become one of Halifax's greatest civic assets, or the Spadina Expressway in Toronto that would've destroyed the Annex, among other things.

It's frustrating to hear idiotic complaints that basically amount to “I don't want anything to change,” but that's the job of planners and politicians—weed through all the BS. And it's the job of the rest of us to fight for good projects.

EDIT: I do understand how frustrating all the NIMBYism is, but the city really is coming along these days. I think it's already one of North America's better mid-sized cities and has a real shot at the top tier. So I tend not to get too worried about the malcontents...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Ultimately, people don't accept change well - that's just the nature of humanity sometimes and that feeling of entitlement.

I think part of the problem, in Halifax and in a lot of other places, is that for a while after the 1970's or so these public consultations took on a kind of popularity contest or referendum feel. They are often a de facto debate on whether or not developers should be allowed to build on their property, which is totally out in left field compared to what's useful and reasonable. The meetings should be framed as an opportunity to collaborate with the developer to improve the proposal, and the locals should have input but they should not be considered the final arbiters on whether something gets built or not. They have a huge conflict of interest.

Hopefully more people will start to think of this system of public consultations and legal battles as antiquated and unworkable. Halifax is not even that bad in the scheme of things. San Francisco is ground zero for this type of thing and I believe there were actually years where the total number of housing units there shrank while housing prices were shooting up dramatically. It's now the land of million-dollar houses, tons of homeless people, and, probably, legal firms specializing in facilitating the approval of backyard decks.

HbD got around this issue somewhat by taking height and density off the table. It's disappointing that the Centre Plan doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.