[Halifax] 6955 Bayers Rd | ? m | 16 fl | Cancelled

[Dmajackson]

The public hearing for the land-use bylaws and ammendments to the MPS is tonight at 6pm....

[worldlyhaligonian]

Should this thread be named 2x8fl?

I don't understand why the new development would be smaller than the old ones behind it (I realize that the former proposal was 16fl)

[Takeo]

The city decided it didn't need the land so they sold it. Now the neighbors are complaining to the city that the land won't be used for recreation. So they're trying to block the development. Let's say they're successful. Then what? Wait for the owner to "see the light" and turn it into a public park with great ROI? Or sell it to another developer who's dying to turn it into a lucrative park with great ROI? We all love swings and monkey bars, but they're not usually a profitable investment. They're usually built by the city with our money for our common good. But this is private land. So it's going to have a development on it one way or the other. Would you rather have every scrap of land eaten up by a low rise development... or have a "tower" than allows much of the open space to be preserved?

[Takeo]

Slone just appealed to the developer and architect to build affordable housing on the site. I'm all for affordable housing of course, but like swings and monkey bars... not a good investment. Developers have to make money.

[sdm]

anyone know how this eventually made out?

Affordable housing, this is new buzz word with council. High density res is as good as it gets in my belief.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I want the damn 16fl tower back, I thought the design looked good. Almost like a modern, urban Dingle tower and would have added great density.

The homes in that area aren't anything to be proud of... this development would make me think much more positively about this neighborhood.

Oh snap.

[Dmajackson]

Don't get me wrong i'm an advocate for affordable huosing but shouldn't we spread it around instead of bunching it all in one area like this section of town? I've driven through the neighbourhood plenty of times and it just looks really low-income. The problem with bunching low-income together is that it commonly increases crime rates (among other things) dramatically altering the reputation of the neighbourhood. While spreading it around has benefits like lower, more spread out crime rates and if they are small enough normal crime rates (like the ones in Bedford), they don't create a bad reputation for a neighbourhood, and they provide the oppurtunity for low-income earners to live in places the rich do (like the low-income on Shore Dr, Bedford).

I would prefer to see this project as market-value housing and see low-income move into other areas like downtown or the south-end.

That's my two cents.

[Haliguy]

Council OK’d a developer’s application to rezone land on Bayers Road to allow for residential development last night.


Kassner Goodspeed Architects asked the city to rezone the land near the corner of Romans Avenue and the north side of Bayers Road so it can submit a proposal to construct an apartment building up to 16 storeys on the site.


Up until last night, the land was designated as park and institutional.


More than a dozen spoke out at last night’s public hearing both for and against the zoning change.


Some worried that an apartment complex would increase traffic in the area and cause parking woes. They suggested that the city buy the land back and turn into a park space. They also shared concerns about the proximity of the site to the memorial for unidentified victims of the Halifax Explosion.


Those who support the move said the current state of the land is an eyesore, and leaving it designated as is leaves its future open to uncertainty. They also said changing the bylaw could create much-need housing for seniors, and help to increase the density on the peninsula.

[sdm]

Bayers Road project gets city’s go-ahead

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Aug 13 - 5:19 AM

A field in front of a gymnastics club on Bayers Road will be the new home of a residential development, after council OK’d a rezoning for the 2.2-acre property.

The field had been zoned "park and institutional" because it used to be tied to the former St. Andrew’s School.

However, when the school became redundant, the city turned it into a recreation centre and sold the field out in front.

The Italian Canadian club bought the property at 6955 Bayers Rd. with the idea of placing its cultural centre there.

However, costs drove the club to redevelop its land on Agricola Street and the club, in turn, sold it to a private developer.

The city had a chance to buy back the land in 2004 for about $1 million, but turned it down, the city’s manager of real property planning told council last night.

"We analysed the soccer facilities and playgrounds in the area and said, ‘We really don’t need this,’" he told councillors.

The neighbourhood is already home to two playgrounds and three soccer fields.

During a public hearing on the rezoning and changes to the land-use bylaw, just more than half of the 16 people who spoke were in favour of the changes.

"If it’s not rezoned residential, it will be redeveloped as institutional . . . and that’s not very great," said David Etter of Bedford.

Rosemary Mooney of nearby Cook Avenue disagreed.

She’d like to see a skating rink, library or swimming pool considered for the site.

"Keep this land and give this developer a piece of land downtown," she said.

A few neighbours to the development said they were opposed to a 16-storey highrise going on the land after a recent public meeting outlined such a building.

Architect Dan Goodspeed said the actual final form has not been decided yet. The developer has considered two, eight-storey buildings as well as three four-storey buildings for his site.

Whatever form is chosen, the public will have their say when Peninsula Community Council holds a public hearing on the development agreement.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

[Dmajackson]

I'm confused is the developer still trying for the sixteen storey building or has he downgraded?

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Don't get me wrong i'm an advocate for affordable huosing but shouldn't we spread it around instead of bunching it all in one area like this section of town?

Absolutely. If you want an extreme example of what happens when you concentrate all of your low income housing in one place, look at the projects on the South Side of Chicago... and Robert Taylor Homes in particular. Robert Taylor got so bad that the Chicago Housing Authority demolished the whole thing (a two mile stretch of land housing twenty six 16 story towers and, at it's peak, close to 20,000 un or under-employed people) and are now replacing it with a mix of 1/3 market, 1/3 affordable and 1/3 assisted.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't believe that downtown should have any overly affordable housing (significantly under market value) when you consider that most people who live downtown are currently employed there and paid a premium for where they live.

This west-end neighborhood already has a significant amount of affordable housing as well as institutional facilities. The schoolboard has land up the road that would be more suitable for future institutional development anyway... stop telling private business what to do with THEIR land.

This shouldn't even be an issue, and it should be a 16 story tower... it will have a much smaller footprint.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I don't believe that downtown should have any overly affordable housing (significantly under market value) when you consider that most people who live downtown are currently employed there and paid a premium for where they live.

This west-end neighborhood already has a significant amount of affordable housing as well as institutional facilities. The schoolboard has land up the road that would be more suitable for future institutional development anyway... stop telling private business what to do with THEIR land.

This shouldn't even be an issue, and it should be a 16 story tower... it will have a much smaller footprint.

Here here.

single tower, and let the government worry about low income housing instead.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

This shouldn't even be an issue, and it should be a 16 story tower... it will have a much smaller footprint.

And why is a smaller footprint a better thing? Is one 16 storey cheaper than 2 X 8 stories or 4 X 4 stories? If so I can see why the developer would go ahead with one tower, however that's not the best urban design idea.

This is quite a large site. One 16 storey tower would leave a huge chunk of land undeveloped, most likely as either parking lot or some token landscaping. That's what Olivet Street looks like and it's not an overly inspiring urban area. Small footprints and big parking lots/lawns are IMO too suburban an idea for this site. I'd rather see some smaller buildings instead of open space which contributes very little.

If it is 16 stories I hope it is built close to Bayer's Road instead of setback 80 feet behind some shrubs and parking.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The homes in that area aren't anything to be proud of... this development would make me think much more positively about this neighborhood.

Last night watching council I finally figured this one out. I, like most of us it seems, had trouble wrapping my head around people in the nearby public housing complaining about this proposal. It's not them at all. Its the friggin' people who live on the other side of Bayer's Road who are complaining. They live in those cute little tick-tack houses behind Halifax shopping centre. They don't even live in the same bloody district as this proposal. Taking NIMBY to new levels.

[Dmajackson]

@ Halifax_Hillbilly; The orignal plans showed the sixteen storey building right up on the road with the parkland in the rear.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

@ Halifax_Hillbilly; The orignal plans showed the sixteen storey building right up on the road with the parkland in the rear.

That's good to hear. I'm kind of split on the development as you probably guessed. I have no problem with that height in the area I'd just be dissapointed to see an abundance of 'parkland' that's really just cheap landscaping.

I'd actually like to see more on the site - a tower as the centre piece of a little cluster of lower buildings, mostly for reasons I've already stated. There's always that possibility to expand in the future.

[Dmajackson]

I think they had walking trails in the plans for the parkland or some sort of open area.

Keep in mind they are losing some land due to the Bayers Road widening/bus lane and there is a graveyard next door.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I wanna see this one approved... it would add so much to the west end, especially coming in from Bayers Lake.

[Spitfire75]

Rezoning’s not always a bad idea

By ANGELA MOMBOURQUETTE Don't Get Me Started
Thu. Aug 28 - 11:26 AM


WHEN YOU HEAR the words "new highrise apartment building," in relation to your own neighbourhood, it’s difficult not to have an immediate negative reaction. That’s especially true when your area is mostly made up of small, single-family houses. Who wants to disrupt the decades-old regularity of life on the quaint streets of west-end Halifax?

Despite that gut reaction, I tried to keep an open mind as I watched a recent council meeting (bless you, Personal Video Recorders), where members of the public and Halifax Regional Council discussed whether a hefty chunk of land at 6955 Bayers Rd. (in front of the St. Andrews Centre) should be rezoned from "Park and Institutional" to "Residential." The land is privately owned and a developer has proposed a 16-storey, 121-unit apartment for the site. Sixteen citizens spoke with conviction on the subject of this potential rezoning, and eventually I concluded that I was actually in favour of the change.

One of the main concerns expressed by those against the rezoning was that an apartment building would lead to increased traffic in the area. Residents said they already see a lot of traffic cutting through their side streets and making illegal U-turns — and I agree that that’s frustrating. But Dan Weir, a lawyer for the developer, argued that any development would have a traffic impact, and their study has shown that residential use would actually have the least.

Some folks suggested that the land could be better put to use as a recreational space, although others pointed out that there’s already several sports fields and a couple of playgrounds nearby. One local resident, Rosemary Mooney, said she’d like to see a library, skating rink, swimming pool or cultural centre on the property. Mooney said she was concerned about the lack of a clear long-term plan for the area, and eloquently added: "I don’t want to be part of a city where developers bulldoze out the trees and name the streets after them." And while I totally agree with the spirit of Ms. Mooney’s sentiment (although it’s clearly too late for you folks on Beech, Oak, and Elm streets), I’m not even sure this particular location has trees on it.

Another concern of the residents was that residential development would harm the nearby memorial gravesite for unidentified victims of the Halifax Explosion. In response to that, Architect Dan Goodspeed pointed out that their archaeological studies have concluded that there would be no disruption to the burial site caused by their construction. He also said that an archaeologist would be available to monitor any digging. It’s also worth noting that a February staff report to the Peninsula Community Council suggested that the developer would actually be willing to make improvements, such as new fencing and pathways, to the existing memorial site.

One of the most convincing arguments in favour of the residential rezoning was made by Matthew Dobbelsteyn, who said he grew up in the area and still lives nearby. He pointed out that the site is an eyesore, and has been unused for 11 years. "Fifteen years ago, I was in preschool at St. Andrews Recreation Centre," he recalled. "Even back then, we weren’t allowed to play in this field, as it wasn’t safe for children due to its condition and proximity to the street. It doesn’t seem as if this has improved since then, and it’s still an unsuitable place for children of any age."

I’d have to agree that the property, in its present state, contributes nothing to the neighbourhood. This is a prime location that has the potential to bring some life to the area. If the municipality wants to increase the population density on the peninsula, what better place to build a residential development than in a place that is already mostly residential? In fact, there are already two apartment buildings more or less next door to this location, so a high-rise isn’t even particularly out of context.

Wisely, HRM Council did approve the rezoning. The next steps will determine what form the residential development will take, which will certainly lead to much more passionate debate about the most harmonious way to bring change the face of a comfortable old neighbourhood.

( community@herald.ca)
Angela Mombourquette is a Halifax freelance writer and documentary maker.

Finally a positive article on this development.