[Halifax] Pavilion (YMCA) and Curve | 2X49 m | 17 & 15 fl | Completed

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I'm not against the development. Having concerns and wanting more information is not the same as being against it. Of course HRMbD is a living document, all law is that way, however...

Look I want a discussion not a flame war, so I am throwing this out there hoping you will all discuss rather than just dismiss.

The point of having a development plan is to say "this is what you can build." Fenwick, you say it shouldn't "hamper development downtown" and I agree, but just because a developer does not want to follow the plan does not mean that it is hampering development, right?

Otherwise, why have any plans at all, if everything is going to ultimately be considered on the project's merits?

I have a slightly different slant on your comment from what Fenwick posted. I think we all agree that plans are constantly evolving, but where (for me) your point seems flawed is that it makes an assumption that the plan was perfect from the beginning and it wasn't. One of the reasons I desperately wanted to get up and lay into Alan Ruffman was he made the assumption that the plan was supported by everyone. The fact is, it wasn't. I didn't support the plan fully - mainly because I felt the height limits were dropped too much in certain places, which wasn't appropriate (this site included). It seemed arbitrary and unfairly penalized the YMCA for thinking 'outside the box'. If you look at some of the post bonus heights; the maximum height for some buildings is actually below what is there now - how does that make sense? So that for me was a flaw - the new plan shouldn't take away what may be there now (just incase there is a bad fire or something happens).

If the post bonus heights had been better thoughtout and took into account existing context; I don't think this would be as much of an issue for me or others. But the plans height map was flawed from the get go.

But, looking from the otherside - the risk in putting the heights where (in my mind) they should've been was that there would be less support or downright opposition.

I've always believed that in approving a plan; if you have roughly equal opposition to support - you've done a good job. I don't think that happened in this case and so I really see this as more of a correction than anything. But that's just me!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I have a slightly different slant on your comment from what Fenwick posted. I think we all agree that plans are constantly evolving, but where (for me) your point seems flawed is that it makes an assumption that the plan was perfect from the beginning and it wasn't. One of the reasons I desperately wanted to get up and lay into Alan Ruffman was he made the assumption that the plan was supported by everyone. The fact is, it wasn't. I didn't support the plan fully - mainly because I felt the height limits were dropped too much in certain places, which wasn't appropriate (this site included). It seemed arbitrary and unfairly penalized the YMCA for thinking 'outside the box'. If you look at some of the post bonus heights; the maximum height for some buildings is actually below what is there now - how does that make sense? So that for me was a flaw - the new plan shouldn't take away what may be there now (just incase there is a bad fire or something happens).

The HbD height limits always felt very idealistic to me, like somebody was just working off of some template of a city they designed rather than actually looking at Halifax and how the downtown area could practically develop in the future. 23 m for the CBC site is not reasonable and in fact that is one of the best highrise sites in the Spring Garden Road area for a variety of reasons (South Park is wide, the Paramount is next door, etc.).

I think some people just like to claim that HbD is written in stone when it supports them. Back when it was being worked on it was supposedly illegitimate and horrible because it wouldn't allow the Heritage Trust and others to appeal everything...

At the end of the day every rule should be open to revision and every plan is flawed. I am incredibly suspicious of anybody who claims otherwise.

[Waye Mason]

I'm a policy wonk, that is what I am. So while I am arguing one point, it doesn't mean I am sold on it. What struck me when looking at the max bonus heights is dropping from 215 to 70 feet from the Y to the CBC property seems out of hand.

I like the massing I see in the renderings looks un-intimidating, and the shadows cast in the morning will be largely onto Sackville and the roof of the Tara building next door, so that is not an issue.

My real concern was raised in another thread, I think Trillium, which is that we tend to have great renderings and big promises and then boring and cheap looking finishes in the end. I think a lot of the design guidance in HRMbD is actually very attractive, but I will believe it when I see it, and touch it, in final.

The new Y building could be really nice, but it could just end up being boring and cheap looking, depending on finish.

Even Falkland/Gottingen looked okay in the renderings, and it has to be one of the ugliest things in the city.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I'm a policy wonk, that is what I am. So while I am arguing one point, it doesn't mean I am sold on it. What struck me when looking at the max bonus heights is dropping from 215 to 70 feet from the Y to the CBC property seems out of hand.

I like the massing I see in the renderings looks un-intimidating, and the shadows cast in the morning will be largely onto Sackville and the roof of the Tara building next door, so that is not an issue.

My real concern was raised in another thread, I think Trillium, which is that we tend to have great renderings and big promises and then boring and cheap looking finishes in the end. I think a lot of the design guidance in HRMbD is actually very attractive, but I will believe it when I see it, and touch it, in final.

The new Y building could be really nice, but it could just end up being boring and cheap looking, depending on finish.

Even Falkland/Gottingen looked okay in the renderings, and it has to be one of the ugliest things in the city.

I have no problem agreeing with your point on how buildings appear one way on plans and then end up changed at construction - I'm troubled how so many changes can fall into the 'minor' category, which are then subject to the decision of a development officer on a permit. I'm not saying I think the DO couldn't exercise good judgement, I'm just concerned that knowing how the process works - the planner who did the DA may know way more of the context or controversial nature of a project and not pass that onto the development staff who issue the permit. So; something which the DO considers minor; could end up being hugely significant to others. That's the risk when you have things done in this sort of silo system and Calgary has the same problem, especially when we have staff turnover.

I think where someone and I agree is the fact the plan was hugely flawed in its decisions on height from the get go - which is where Waye you may feel we (so123 and I) are picking the plan apart. Don't get me wrong, I think HbD had some great ideas - but it was hugely inappropriate for the height maps (post bonus) to not acknowledge the existing heights of developments. I think so123 put it best: it was like the city was being planned from scratch and no one bothered to look at what was there.

Think about it in another way: Lets say tonight there is a huge fire at the Martello causing massive structural damage such that the building is no longer structurally sound. So the building has to be demolished...now you might think well that shoudln't be a huge issue; but if my memory of the non-conforming status rules in the act serve me - it can only be reconstructed to 75% of what it was or follow the new rules which would end up cutting a big chunk off the building height. Now how is that fair?

[skyscraperfan]

What is going on with this proposal? This is one of those buildings that the Halifax community really needs! Are the shadows that the building could possibly create really going to slow this one down? UPDATES?

[worldlyhaligonian]

I think it still needs final approval, but I think CBC recently tendered for the expansion of their Bell Rd. location.

[Jonovision]

I've been told the public hearing is on October 4th.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I've been told the public hearing is on October 4th.

Here we go! I'm not in Halifax at the moment, but would encourage any of you guys to go and balance out the voices of the opponents... I assume they will show up.

[resetcbu1]

For sure the opposition will show up , it seems as though these anti-everything kinda people really have nothing else to do , like it's their job to complain lol. Wish I had that kind of free time...

[halifaxboyns]

Damn the day after I leave...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

For sure the opposition will show up , it seems as though these anti-everything kinda people really have nothing else to do , like it's their job to complain lol. Wish I had that kind of free time...

I don't necessarily see this one having a ton of problems. The biggest reasons for complaints about other developments downtown mostly don't exist for this site. The buildings don't impact views much, there aren't many heritage buildings close by, there aren't many residents close by, etc.

There's also a big public component (YMCA) that makes a project like this much easier to sell. Anybody will be able to go in and use the new facilities if they're built.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't necessarily see this one having a ton of problems. The biggest reasons for complaints about other developments downtown mostly don't exist for this site. The buildings don't impact views much, there aren't many heritage buildings close by, there aren't many residents close by, etc.

There's also a big public component (YMCA) that makes a project like this much easier to sell. Anybody will be able to go in and use the new facilities if they're built.

The biggest impact will be on those in the neighbouring highrise buildings - who were out in force to the public meeting way back in April. I went and was nearly ill at how stupid they were being.

'This will block my view' will be the mantra of the public hearing. Ruffman was there too, but he was all conspiracy theory mainly. I know Pacey was there, but I don't recall him saying much, just watching.

[someone123]

Yeah, I should have remembered that you'd have people in buildings like the Martello absurdly complaining while they are themselves blocking the views of other people. I'm not sure complaints like that tend to carry much weight though, particularly for buildings of moderate height with a public component.

I don't know what Ruffman said exactly but I remember him fighting the Salter block development. Occasionally I agree with his comments but he is yet another person from the 60s crowd that seems to have very unbalanced opinions.

I don't think that's a coincidence. When you're retired with presumably money, heritage property, cushy university job, etc., it must be pretty easy to see economic activity and new housing as unnecessary. It is a classic case of "pulling up the ladder" once you've climbed it -- now that Alan Ruffman has what he wants Halifax doesn't need to offer anymore opportunity! The whole city is to go into retirement.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, I should have remembered that you'd have people in buildings like the Martello absurdly complaining while they are themselves blocking the views of other people. I'm not sure complaints like that tend to carry much weight though, particularly for buildings of moderate height with a public component.

I don't know what Ruffman said exactly but I remember him fighting the Salter block development. Occasionally I agree with his comments but he is yet another person from the 60s crowd that seems to have very unbalanced opinions.

I don't think that's a coincidence. When you're retired with presumably money, heritage property, cushy university job, etc., it must be pretty easy to see economic activity and new housing as unnecessary. It is a classic case of "pulling up the ladder" once you've climbed it -- now that Alan Ruffman has what he wants Halifax doesn't need to offer anymore opportunity! The whole city is to go into retirement.

The complaint about the view is not really given much credit, be it the view from someone's condo or the view from the citadell. The importance of development in the downtown is becoming much more apparent to council and I think many are starting to realize that HbD's post bonus height system was flawed out of the gate. Why on earth existing tall buildings would get a post bonus height below their current built form, is beyond me.

But I think many people on council realize that if they are going to start turning the downtown around, there needs to be people there. That means more condos buildings and the proposal isn't out of context with the block it's in.

I think most see Ruffman as a thorn in the side of HRM and don't really give his views too much thought....

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think that's a coincidence. When you're retired with presumably money, heritage property, cushy university job, etc., it must be pretty easy to see economic activity and new housing as unnecessary. It is a classic case of "pulling up the ladder" once you've climbed it -- now that Alan Ruffman has what he wants Halifax doesn't need to offer anymore opportunity! The whole city is to go into retirement.

I think you've nailed it... its easy for them to have this ideology, but it leaves young people like myself out to dry. We go down the road to Toronto or even leave Canada.

The other issue I have is acumen. Its easy for these people to make generalizations and statements about Halifax... but there isn't much backing them up. In fact, its like a broken down telephone situation. False statements are made by the anti-development groups, then passed through the media, and finally end up on the lips of common folks who perceive them to be factual. An example of this would be the interpretation of viewplane legislation and the use of incorrect images by the heritage groups.

Additonally, saying Halifax "has always been this way and always will" is utter nonsense because every city goes through constant change. Using historical examples from the 1800's has some merit, yet it doesn't accurately describe how Halifax can have a role in the new paradigm of Canada / the world. Just because you are a professor at Dal doesn't mean you are a professor of business / economics. Looking at the buildings Halifax has from its era's of prosperity shouldn't hamper future prosperity... but I guess if you already have money then it doesn't matter to you. Dreamland.

[someone123]

Actually the frightening thing is that some of them are professors of business/law/economics/planning. Ruffman and Epstein were involved in a land use planning course and Epstein is a lawyer. My old econ prof has also spoken out against some new development.

I think they are intelligent and right about some things but are not necessarily practical or in touch with the rest of society. It's very easy to be crtical when you're a prof who lectures to undergrads, gets effectively paid by committee more or less regardless of performance, and doesn't necessarily need to be correct or make things work in the real world. Business people have to make things work. If you're a developer you either build stuff people want or you go out of business, period.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

. When you're retired with presumably money, heritage property, cushy university job, etc., it must be pretty easy to see economic activity and new housing as unnecessary. It is a classic case of "pulling up the ladder" once you've climbed it -- now that Alan Ruffman has what he wants Halifax doesn't need to offer anymore opportunity! The whole city is to go into retirement.

I like it. This is essentially the same theory that the NDP operates under. It is easy to be critical and tell the world how public housing, eco friendly everything, large pay increases for low level public servants and students and equality for everyone will be the norm under NDP rule.........Until they are elected and have to deliver.....................

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

I like it. This is essentially the same theory that the NDP operates under. It is easy to be critical and tell the world how public housing, eco friendly everything, large pay increases for low level public servants and students and equality for everyone will be the norm under NDP rule.........Until they are elected and have to deliver.....................

Yet they still get a free pass for showing up en masse at things like yesterday's Labour Day union love-in on the Common. For many taxpayers that is the equivalent of making speeches at a Klan rally, yet the NDP get away with it. People just don't seem to make the connection.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Empire

I like it. This is essentially the same theory that the NDP operates under. It is easy to be critical and tell the world how public housing, eco friendly everything, large pay increases for low level public servants and students and equality for everyone will be the norm under NDP rule.........Until they are elected and have to deliver.....................

"Pulling up the ladder" is akin to policy of the NDP?

Give me one example.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet they still get a free pass for showing up en masse at things like yesterday's Labour Day union love-in on the Common. For many taxpayers that is the equivalent of making speeches at a Klan rally, yet the NDP get away with it. People just don't seem to make the connection.

What happened on the Common? An NDP rally?