HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2013, 6:02 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2013, 3:51 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
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.
All thoughtful points, and I don't necessarily disagree.

Just seems we often blame the policies for problems like this, rather than staff, but in many cases like this when we dig in, we find there is leeway for project to move forward (with a push from the Mayor) within existing planning policies notwithstanding the plans being old and inadequate. You just needed the will or desire to move forward. In other words, the planning statutes and laws aren't the problem, at least not here and not always. Rather, here it's the conservative minded staffers who disliked the height of this proposal that killed it, until Mike Savage, quite rightly, kicked them in the ass to get it moving.

I wonder, how many years, maybe decades, have communities like this languished in low-density death, simply because HRM planners blocked proposal after proposal because they didn't like the height. I don't know if that is true, but this little proposal itself speaks volumes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2013, 3:25 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I wonder, how many years, maybe decades, have communities like this languished in low-density death, simply because HRM planners blocked proposal after proposal because they didn't like the height. I don't know if that is true, but this little proposal itself speaks volumes.
As far as the central city, I actually think that the 60s through the 80s were actually pretty laissez-faire, planning-wise. I'd like to know whether this hunch is borne out or not, but given the number of towers from that era scattered throughout the peninsula, it seems like rules were more relaxed in the past. Maybe too relaxed, which led to the current set of perhaps overly restrictive guidelines? Just a thought. No idea if I'm on the right track.

Last edited by Drybrain; Sep 17, 2013 at 5:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2013, 10:08 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
As far as the central city, I actually think that the 60s through the 80s were actually pretty laissez-faire, planning-wise. I'd like to know whether this hunch is borne out or not, but given the number of towers from that era scattered throughout the peninsula, it seems like rules were more relaxed in the past. Maybe too relaxed, which led to the current set of perhaps overly restrictive guidelines? Just a thought. No idea if I'm on the right track.
I don't know all of the history, but one of the things that always struck me was how the zoning restrictions on Gottingen Street were so open. Yet, it appears not as open to modern design as I had thought.

With the C-2 zone, you could do quite a bit - it's inclusive of residential uses and commercial uses. The only catch was the height precincts. I was surprised how few developers took advantage of that and came in to do anything - although now as I've had more experience in planning, I suspect the land costs would still require something bigger than the height precincts in order to make a decent return.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2013, 7:29 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
These applications are moving along!

District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee on October 28th, 2013 (for recommendation to HWCC).

Sources : District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee Agenda for October 28th, 2013
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2013, 5:30 PM
JET JET is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
These applications are moving along!

District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee on October 28th, 2013 (for recommendation to HWCC).

Sources : District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee Agenda for October 28th, 2013
that would make a huge difference/improvement for the street.
Maybe Pizza Pizza will start delivering in the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2013, 10:14 PM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
does anyone have an update on these
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2014, 8:04 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
I think there are new renderings up on the website.



More here: http://www.housingtrust.ca/projects/diamonds-bar/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 12:48 AM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think there are new renderings up on the website.



More here: http://www.housingtrust.ca/projects/diamonds-bar/
The Maitland portion looks so much better. I really hope these go for approval soon and gets started
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 2:32 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
These projects will have their public hearings held in the coming months.

Halifax & West Community Council Agenda - May 20th, 2014
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 3:03 AM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
These projects will have their public hearings held in the coming months.

Halifax & West Community Council Agenda - May 20th, 2014
I thought they had one back in last October
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 6:40 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
The public hearings for these projects will be held on June 17th, 2014 at H&WCC. If Scheuld "Q" is approved for these lands the development agreement will be decided upon a couple of months later.
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 10:36 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
The public hearings for these projects will be held on June 17th, 2014 at H&WCC. If Scheuld "Q" is approved for these lands the development agreement will be decided upon a couple of months later.
Actually the DA will be considered by Council at the same time as the LUB amendments. One public hearing but two votes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 9:44 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
The number of public hearings in Halifax seems a bit extreme. Aren't there guidelines to allow passage of agreements that meet the requirements?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 12:50 AM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
In an ideal world that would make sense, but in Halifax...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 12:18 AM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
In an ideal world that would make sense, but in Halifax...
If you don't need an MPS amendment, you can just do a DA and do one hearing. If you need an MPS amendment, you need another hearing. If the SMPS were up to date, you wouldn't entertain a lot of amendments and you'ed just do DAs. In many other cities this is the case. The number of MPS amendments we consider is crazy.

An MPS amendment means you don't - do not - meet the requirements. The 1972 requirements. The out of date requirements that hopefully will be replaced in the next couple years.

The public hearing requirements are established by the Province in the Charter, BTW. You cannot change the MPS without a public hearing. You can do a DA with just written comment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 3:24 AM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
If you don't need an MPS amendment, you can just do a DA and do one hearing. If you need an MPS amendment, you need another hearing. If the SMPS were up to date, you wouldn't entertain a lot of amendments and you'ed just do DAs. In many other cities this is the case. The number of MPS amendments we consider is crazy.

An MPS amendment means you don't - do not - meet the requirements. The 1972 requirements. The out of date requirements that hopefully will be replaced in the next couple years.

The public hearing requirements are established by the Province in the Charter, BTW. You cannot change the MPS without a public hearing. You can do a DA with just written comment.
What part would all the recent MPS amendments play in a new MPS? Take the bad parts out, put the amendments in? Rewrite it using only the amendments? A few paragraphs of backgrounder talking about the failures of the 1972 MPS?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 25, 2014, 2:58 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
We need to have a public hearing about public hearings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 12:18 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
The public hearing was just held for the M.E.T. site. Schedule 'Q' was approved.
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 4:30 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
^Ditto for the Diamonds site. The development agreements will return soon for final approval. BTW the votes on both projects were unanimous.
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.