Centre Plan

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You answered your own question. It is an arbitrary number. By making the number smaller and the permitted structures shorter, the city is making a value judgement that shorter is better. But they do not articulate why that is. So one can only presume that they are pandering to the anti-height luddites.

By allowing height, they could enhance the value of real estate, provide more diversity in architectural design, allow taller and narrower buildings that are in fact less imposing than the typical Halifax short and stubby building that goes to the property line, and potentially enhance the revenue potential for developers, allowing for more interesting and better finished buildings. Aesthetically it avoids the Halifax tabletop effect we have now, and provide for a much more interesting skyline.

So now it is your turn. Tell me why shorter is better.

well lot coverage standards and setbacks have a roll to play to preventing massive blocks being constructed. you do have a point that height might be used to reduce lot coverage, but frankly i don't see that happening. lets look at recent high rises - they are all formulaic. Podium to the street, step back to a tower on top, repeat form for 15 floors, then put something fancy on top.

the maple is good at the street, good for the overall skyline, but the middle is crap. Point north is all crap. TD reno is good, but would be less so if it was 10 more floors of the same treatment. As for the willow tree proposals - the northern building is crap. the Proposal for the corner is better, but the renderings are impossibly weightless and give no real indication of what the clading will really look like - and it might be crap.

my read of the policy docs was that 20 floors was max pre-bonus height. i have no problems giving more in exchange for something in return. Save some historic buildings, get more floors. provide a tangible public benefit (and in my mind public art (ahem trillum lighthouses) dont count.) and get the extra floors.

if i were to list my my top 10 favorite buildings in halifax td would likely be the only one on the list over 10 stories. halifax developers do low well. Tall not so much.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

And there will be many more to come. There are going to be a number of workshops to review the draft throughout November. HRM is also taking open comment on the draft until early December.

Ian, there are several mistakes in the colour map in the new document particularly in the areas coloured as parks and open space. The document should not include private space such as Brightwood in the same category as public open space, In addition the depiction of lands around Dartmouth High and on the Common have several mistakes. Gloria has referred to these mistakes at a previous CDAC meeting.
I hope the CDAC meeting tomorrow will provide members with a colour copy of the document, not Black & White as has happened at a previous meeting.
I will print out a copy of the page and bring it to the meeting.
I also suggest that the final document and the legal documents include all the words of the legislation regarding the identification of the parcels which comprise the Common.

[JET]

I'm surprised that people would block other people's comments, where's the fun in that?

[teddifax]

sometimes there is no Fun in the comments and are just nasty, not what we are here for.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I'm surprised that people would block other people's comments, where's the fun in that?

It's actually more fun now...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by teddifax

sometimes there is no Fun in the comments and are just nasty, not what we are here for.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Ian, there are several mistakes in the colour map in the new document particularly in the areas coloured as parks and open space. The document should not include private space such as Brightwood in the same category as public open space, In addition the depiction of lands around Dartmouth High and on the Common have several mistakes. Gloria has referred to these mistakes at a previous CDAC meeting.
I hope the CDAC meeting tomorrow will provide members with a colour copy of the document, not Black & White as has happened at a previous meeting.
I will print out a copy of the page and bring it to the meeting.
I also suggest that the final document and the legal documents include all the words of the legislation regarding the identification of the parcels which comprise the Common.

I'm encouraged by the fact that it is a draft, and there will be more opportunities to iron out the details and hopefully provide clarification.

For anybody not happy with the current version, now is your chance to make a difference!

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's actually more fun now...

Well, there is that. So if everyone blocked one person, and that person kept posting, are they then arguing with themselves? Interesting.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's actually more fun now...

Originally Posted by JET

Well, there is that. So if everyone blocked one person, and that person kept posting, are they then arguing with themselves? Interesting.

Hmm... I discovered that blocking a certain user does not block their posts when someone quotes them.

Unfortunate, but perhaps shows the folly of being so sensitive.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Well, there is that. So if everyone blocked one person, and that person kept posting, are they then arguing with themselves? Interesting.

It appears that they are!

Now... back to the Centre Plan... nothing to see here!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There were several rounds of public consultation over the last year or so - did you participate at all?

I did. But your question is an attempt to pivot to a different issue, because even if I attended nothing, my question, and the sentiment behind it, still stands.

On the other hand, if your question is suggesting that people who don't participate in consultations lose their right to express general democratic judgment/will through vote on important public policies like the Centre Plan, then your question is undemocratic.

I'm going to take a charitable interpretation and assume you meant to just try to pivot.

On that: Consultation is consultation. It's not final decision-making. The ultimate Centre Plan represents HRM planning's judgment on what "input" in the consultation was worthy of incorporation. Not all feedback obviously is considered or used.

Moreover, consultations are far too small to represent or reflect voters who participate in elections, even if attending to maximum capacity. Even if I attended every consultation and contributed with all of my might, it's just not the same thing.

Consultations in the lead up to the finalization of a plan is not at all comparable to giving voters a chance to assess the full Plan before an election.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

To be honest, I find the Plan’s height limitations pretty horrifying. I consider them drastic, oppressive, uncompromising and what's worse: they seem to be based on the ideology of a relative few.



I understand there has been some effort to engage the public. However, I’m sure that the majority of Haligonians have no idea this is happening, and may or may not agree that it is the best way to literally shape our city's future. The extent of the implications of this plan should require HRM to do better than this. In effect, it has been undemocratic.

What could be done at this point (or any point) beyond what's been done already, to make this more democratic?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I did. But your question is an attempt to pivot to a different issue, because even if I attended nothing, my question, and the sentiment behind it, still stands.

On the other hand, if your question is suggesting that people who don't participate in consultations lose their right to express general democratic judgment/will through vote on important public policies like the Centre Plan, then your question is undemocratic.

I'm going to take a charitable interpretation and assume you meant to just try to pivot.

It was just a question. I'm not on here to try to "win the conversation"... I was just curious.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

On that: Consultation is consultation. It's not final decision-making. The ultimate Centre Plan represents HRM planning's judgment on what "input" in the consultation was worthy of incorporation. Not all feedback obviously is considered or used.

Moreover, consultations are far too small to represent or reflect voters who participate in elections, even if attending to maximum capacity. Even if I attended every consultation and contributed with all of my might, it's just not the same thing.

Consultations in the lead up to the finalization of a plan is not at all comparable to giving voters a chance to assess the full Plan before an election.

So a better process would have been:

- Draft a plan
- Run candidates in each district who are running for/against the plan
- If that majority of "pro" candidates are elected, this means the public supports the plan and it is implemented
- If the majority of "con" candidates are elected, this means the public rejects the plan and it is thrown out

- The candidates who were elected mostly on the basis of whether or not they supported the plan govern the city together for the next 5 years

-If the plan had been rejected, a new one is drafted over the next 5 years, at which point the public "vote on it" through another municipal election.



Is this along the lines of what you would have preferred? If not, what?

[Hali87]

All that said, I'd encourage anyone who hasn't come out to the Centre Plan meetings, participated in their web forums, emailed staff and/or council about it etc. to do so - they do actually take every single comment received and acknowledge/consider it. If one person sends an email saying "20 storeys seems like too low of a height limit", it's fairly easy for them to dismiss that (with rational arguments) as an outlier, but if they get 50 emails like that then this is more likely to be incorporated into the final plan (or at least they will have to find more compelling reasons to dismiss it).

I just feel like city staff can do no right in the eyes of many. The process for drafting the Centre Plan has been one of the most democratic that I've seen for this kind of thing. Can you point to a few real-life examples of a better, more democratic process for developing this kind of plan?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Questions:

Are current proposals grandfathered? AoR?

It seems like those lands that allow for 20+ would become automatically worth much more if this type of policy were to come into effect.

Will lands outside of centre plan be allowed higher than 20 stories?

Also, let's say a new proposal conformed with all of the plan's requirements at ~19 stories... would it still require the amount of public consultation of current proposals? Or is the point to allow these to pass via council vote only? If so... I think 19 story buildings would begin sprouting up everywhere.

I can see alot of issues with setting an arbitrary height limit over the whole area, not limited to the constraints to density and the promotion of sprawl.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Questions:

Are current proposals grandfathered? AoR?


It seems like those lands that allow for 20+ would become automatically worth much more if this type of policy were to come into effect.

Will lands outside of centre plan be allowed higher than 20 stories?

Also, let's say a new proposal conformed with all of the plan's requirements at ~19 stories... would it still require the amount of public consultation of current proposals? Or is the point to allow these to pass via council vote only? If so... I think 19 story buildings would begin sprouting up everywhere.

I can see alot of issues with setting an arbitrary height limit over the whole area, not limited to the constraints to density and the promotion of sprawl.

current proposals are mostly not AOR, nor are there DA's in place. so probably not. if they were approved and had a DA, then you would be grandfathered. thats what happened with HRMxD.

limiting to 20 stories is not going to contribute to sprawl.

[teddifax]

I am just afraid of the Plateau effect, if we have a limitation of 20 stories, then developers would try to build to that height and all buildings would appear uniform. I would really like to see a development with a much taller building centering a grouping of other less tall buildings of various heights that would surround it. And for heavens sake please make the top of the buildings a bit more interesting as well as the facades. We do have a history of plain buildings, although recently that does seem to be changing. It would be nice to see the really tall building with a rotating restaurant/lookoff and with the stepped-down outer buildings, the view would be guaranteed.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

current proposals are mostly not AOR, nor are there DA's in place. so probably not. if they were approved and had a DA, then you would be grandfathered. thats what happened with HRMxD.

limiting to 20 stories is not going to contribute to sprawl.

Sorry, Zio, I think you're just plain wrong. Putting aside the stupidity of essentially blocking anything taller than 20 stories in the entire Centre Plan zone, 20 stories may not "contribute to sprawl" on its own IF developments this height would be allowed through out the CP, or even in a generous number of zones or areas. But you know that is false.

In fact, developments up to 20 stories are allowed literally only in a handful of parcels of land in the entire CP zone.

I really wish those people defending this Centre Plan's height limits would defend the *actual* height limits proposed in the Plan and not pretend the Plan allows developers to propose 20 stories all over town. Reality: 20 stories is not only the max limit anywhere outside HRMxD zone, this max limit (looks to me) is allowed in literally only 3% of the total Centre Plan zone area. That's because 20 stories is only allowed in "Centres", which constitute 28% of the overall CP zone, but when you examine each Centre (Gottingen, Young, Wyse, Quinnpool, etc, etc), 20 stories is often allowed in small portions of each Centre, sometimes teeny tiny portions (see Quinpool -- literally three parcels of land). Even in "Centre zones", 1-3 stories is the most common height limit.

This plan is going to promote sprawl and economically damage the city. It's like putting ramparts/viewplane restrictions for 90% of the city. Ludicrous.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So a better process would have been:

- Draft a plan
- Run candidates in each district who are running for/against the plan
- If that majority of "pro" candidates are elected, this means the public supports the plan and it is implemented
- If the majority of "con" candidates are elected, this means the public rejects the plan and it is thrown out

- The candidates who were elected mostly on the basis of whether or not they supported the plan govern the city together for the next 5 years

-If the plan had been rejected, a new one is drafted over the next 5 years, at which point the public "vote on it" through another municipal election.



Is this along the lines of what you would have preferred? If not, what?

Why is democratic input via vote so difficult to comprehend?

It's very simple. Draft the plan and release it publicly as early as possible before the election. The earlier the better.

That way voters can ask Councillors running their position on it. They can ask the Mayor's position on it. Journalists can quiz candidates on it. And if it's an important issue to the voter, they cast their vote for the Councillor whose position best reflects their preference.

The election happens. Councillors who support the Plan are either elected. Or those opposing are elected. Maybe Councillors who support the Plan overall, but think it needs only be amended (to remove height limits) are elected. Probably a mix of different views. And in each case, the election will have implications for how the Plan is handled post-election. Maybe the whole thing is punted because a majority of Councillors who oppose the plan are elected. That may suck for Planners, but the reality, the People would have spoken. Or maybe a lot of the Plan is kept, but height limits are amended, based on consensus of Councillors with differing views.

Democracy is beautiful, isn't it?

You can bet that had these Centre Plan docs been released prior to the election, I'd be basing my vote on my Councillor's stated position on it. I think this Centre Plan, in its current form, will promote sprawl and economically damage the city.

Instead, it seems to me HRM Planning hid this thing, sat on it until after the election. Really shameful and contemptuous of voters, but not all that surprising from this Planning office given its deceptions on other counts, like RP+5.