Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual
So tell me again why we shouldn't see HRM planning staff as an obstacle to progress and good planning in this city? For some reason, they always portend to speak for the "local community". And it always seems that their imagined local community hates anything over 3 floors.
From what I understand, this moved forwards thanks to the behind the scenes work of Mike Savage AND the support of Jennifer Watts, for those who like to chide her on here for being anti-development. Well, here she is on board.
|
I agree with someone123's comment about the letter - it is very helpful in supporting this proposal.
I think the challenge for the department (any department I would add) is that many of the policies in the area are quite old. This was the problem with amalgamation, the policy plan in place was adopted in the 1980's, possibly earlier. So the reality is that the policies in place don't reflect modern reality but because it is approved by Council, the planners must follow it - this is why you see a lot of developments necessitating policy amendments.
Waye's point that the Regional Centre Plan will replace the current policy is good - the challenge is how do you move forward at this 'interim period' where we know new policy is coming, but it's not done. This isn't a problem just that HRM faces - all cities do. Calgary has policies in place dating back from the 1980's, that we still have to implement. If you watched the video I posted of our General Manager Rollin Stanley, he talked about how we had something like 18 Area Redevelopment Plans (plans for already built out communities) and the average age of them was nearly 15 years old. If it takes 2 years to update/refresh each one, it would take 36 years to do all of them over.
So like he says in his presentation - we have to think differently on how we plan, hence why the Regional Centre plan is focusing on corridors. This way, it's part of 1 plan and that is what gets updated every 5 years...(versus a whole bunch of smaller ones that takes more time).
In terms of the design of the building - the over hang is a little disappointing, but I can see that it also functions to provide some shelter to pedestrians. I would've preferred some awnings or something like that, rather than such a bulky projection. The difficulty in the urban form of Halifax is that we didn't have lanes - so when you get these corner parcels, where does the access come from? If it were a lane, it would be easy - the lane would be at the back and there would be no street access, but we don't have that here. So usually the access will come from the street that has the least traffic - thus the way it's proposed. I think I'd rather see it the way it's designed so that you have townhouses facing the former school site, because if it is redeveloped it's more of an appealing appearance than a driveway.