[Halifax] The Sister Sites | 2X29 m | 2X9 floors | Completed

[Jonovision]

20190111_130855 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

20190206_152657 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

20190320_151331 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[someone123]

Source

[Jonovision]

I'm confused with this one as it has yet to go back for approval of any development on the additional property that was acquired.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I'm confused with this one as it has yet to go back for approval of any development on the additional property that was acquired.

Would the addition be small enough that it could be considered non-substantive and approved by the Development Officer?

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Would the addition be small enough that it could be considered non-substantive and approved by the Development Officer?

I'm guessing that is what happened but in my opinion they use that loop hole way too much.

I had been investigating the non approved changes to materials on the maple and my response from staff cited these are the ways a Development Officer can approve. To me a substantial extension to a building under construction does not qualify under any of these.

Site Plan Approval: Non-Substantive Applications

(11) The following developments are non-substantive site plan approval applications:

(a) accessory buildings and structures;

(b) development that does not materially change the external appearance of a building facing streetlines;

(c) new window and door openings or alterations to existing window and door openings abutting streetlines;

(d) alteration of external cladding material that does not affect the external appearance of a building facing streetlines;

(e) signs;

(f) decks, patios, and similar unenclosed features; and

(g) steps, stairs and other entryways.

(12) A non-substantive site plan application may be approved by the Development Officer.

[someone123]

Source

[someone123]

Source

[someone123]

Source

[alps]

Clyde St. used to feel like a barren wasteland. What a difference – it looks so urban now.


(Google Street View, 2009)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by alps

Clyde St. used to feel like a barren wasteland. What a difference – it looks so urban now.

The city gets a lot of bang for its buck out of new developments along Clyde Street. Besides the wasteland itself getting built on these new buildings tie together Spring Garden Road and the residential Schmidtville area. Collectively this area makes up a dozen blocks or so that you can explore on foot with mostly pretty nice streetscapes.

Another more substantial gap like this that has not been filled in yet is Cogswell between Brunswick and Gottingen.

[Keith P.]

While only the Mary Ann has been finished, I question how much of a difference these have and will make. They follow the urban planner dogma of having commercial space (at least some) at street level and yet in the case of the Mary Ann none of it is a very big draw and much of the building perimeter is still just walls. You saw far more people coming and going when this was a parking lot "wasteland" because those lots were very busy and many pedestrians used them as shortcuts. I remain unconvinced that these buildings will be much of an improvement for the vibrancy of the area.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I partially agree with your points, but I think adding residential density there will have more of a positive affect than keeping them as parking lots. There are still plenty of places to park in the SGR area.

[Keith P.]

I wasn't talking about parking or the availability thereof, just the "wasteland" comment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Surface parking is always perceived as wasted land by skyscraper enthusiasts.

[Phalanx]

By more than skyscraper enthusiasts, I'm sure. It is objectively a waste of space in a dense urban environment when you can get all the advantages and then some by building vertically (such as more parking on the same footprint). The only advantage to surface parking is that it's cheap and fast to construct. Beyond that it's a waste of space and an eyesore.

[OldDartmouthMark]

True enough, but I was just stating from a point of view that not everybody looks at a condo/apartment building as a thing of beauty, whether it's better for the urban environment or not. Surface parking seems like a waste to me when land is scarce, but in a more suburban or rural environment I don't mind it at all.

To be honest, until I started visiting this forum, I had never heard anybody speak of surface parking lots as though they were some sort of bane on society as if they were thrust upon us by the devil himself... but here it's just about to that level...

[RoshanMcG]

[someone123]

Source