Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend
They talk about height regimes and bonusing in the plan. In a zone that qualifies for 16-20 stories, is that 16 as of right and up to 20 with bonusing, or is it build 16-20 as of right and you can get more than 20 with bonusing? I wasn't clear on reading the plan if bonusing could get a developer more than 20 stories or not.
I was also concerned that for some lots that already have proposals started, the plan seemed to shut those down, even if the proposal and area makes a lot of sense. For example, the corner of Robie and Spring Garden (16-20 zone), the Little Nashville site on Wyse road (4-6 zone), The Bens Bakery site on Pepperell (4-6 zone), Cruikshanks Funeral Home on Robie next to The Welsford (4-6 zone) - for crying out loud, they zone the Welsford property as 4-6!
It was disheartening to see these vast centre areas in red on the main map, only to drill down and see that precious small portions were dedicated to anything more than 4-6 let alone 7-20. I agree that a few 30 story buildings around town are nice to have, maybe there will be, maybe there won't. And I don't necessarily need or want to see much more 20 story zones, but I'd hope to see more swathes of 11-15 and certainly 7-10 throughout these primary growth areas. This is all expensive property, subject to high property tax in the current regime, and its not difficult to imagine developers stepping back from these properties because it would be hard to build a profitable project that is a) architecturally interesting b) made from quality materials c) affordable for tenants.
It could all serve to accelerate growth outside of the centre where developers can still cut deals to get more bang for their buck and pay less tax to boot.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87
Presumably these applications would be grandfathered in, depending how far along they are in the process when the Centre Plan comes into effect.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May
No.
" As part of our analysis of these applications, and in consideration of the current status of the Centre Plan process, it is now an appropriate time to seek public feedback on each of the proposals. This will take place at a public meeting on December 7th, 2016 at the Atlantica Hotel at 1980 Robie St., Halifax where each development proposal will be presented within the context of the proposed Centre Plan policy.
http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/docu...026cdac8.2.pdf |
The height limits in this CP are truly outrageous, especially if HRM planning are not grandfathering proposals. They're using the Plan to turn back the clock on countless fantastic proposals, many already in the the works, or proposed. It's like an omnibus attempt by HRM bureaucrats to stuff 20 development approval/disapproval processes into a single vote on the Centre Plan.
And does anyone else also find it suspicious that the "Centre Plan Urban Structure Release" emerged only a few days *after* the election? Why not have it out there before, so Councillors could take position on it and campaign for or against? Why is the full Plan only being released by the end of the month? Why not have some democratic input?
The vague "Objectives" came out a few days before the election, but the documents that suggested concrete height limits/controls for many neighborhoods... released days after?
By the way, I completely agree with this assessment by Terry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend
It was disheartening to see these vast centre areas in red on the main map, only to drill down and see that precious small portions were dedicated to anything more than 4-6 let alone 7-20. I agree that a few 30 story buildings around town are nice to have, maybe there will be, maybe there won't. And I don't necessarily need or want to see much more 20 story zones, but I'd hope to see more swathes of 11-15 and certainly 7-10 throughout these primary growth areas. This is all expensive property, subject to high property tax in the current regime, and its not difficult to imagine developers stepping back from these properties because it would be hard to build a profitable project that is a) architecturally interesting b) made from quality materials c) affordable for tenants.
It could all serve to accelerate growth outside of the centre where developers can still cut deals to get more bang for their buck and pay less tax to boot.
|
I'll wait for the final document, and make a final judgment on that, but for now, I'm #KillTheCentrePlan.
I've never trusted HRM planning on anything like this.
HRM Planning completely dropped the ball on the RP+5, it took incredibly public/political pressure to realize they goofed up and were doing little to contain sprawl.
HRM Planning also tried to suppress the Stantec Report, which offered clear evidence/recommendations for hundreds of millions of savings, by driving more growth downtown, rather than more in sprawl parks. Rather the RP+5 seemed more concerned with a detailed "Road Network Plan" than achieving downtown/urban growth targets. Instead, they only made the Stantec Report public after significant pressures, and even then, tried to editorialize/discredit it with a lame FAQ about its meaning/implication.
And now, after delaying the Centre Plan for literally years, they've released this regressive document, which will lock in communities, deter development, not only skyscrapers but also midrise development, and increase housing prices for everyone while promoting sprawl.
Well done, HRM Planning. What a gong show.
Prev
Linear Mode
