[Halifax] Artillery Place Landmark | 26 m | 8 fl | Proposed

[GUB]

This needs to get built.
There are many great views to be had all over the city. This view from the Citadel thing is getting out of hand!
There are empty cavities and public spaces such as parks, graveyards etc all over the city that kind of break up the urban fabric when overdone...

[kph06]

This got the axe:

Artillery Place review turfed

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by kph06

This got the axe:

Artillery Place review turfed

Some good quotes from Waye Mason in there:

“According to HRM by Design, it should be four or five storeys, not eight,” Waye Mason said.

If Landmark Developments wants to build higher, the company would need a municipal planning strategy amendment. Regional council would have to approve it.

However, Mason said part of the strength of adhering to HRM by Design is that if offers clarity and consistency.

“I’m really nervous that going to spot zoning will undermine the gains we’ve had in terms of speed and predictability of building downtown.”

Mason pointed to 32 projects underway or planned for downtown as proof that providing clear and consistent rules accelerates development.

For example, the Citadel hotel site on Barrington Street took less than six months to approve, he said.

“If you bring in a proposal that meets the requirements, you’re off to the races. In any other city, that would have taken 18 to 24 months.

“If you conform to the guidelines, it’s very quick.”

Although he won’t support Artillery Place project at its current height, Mason said the city is planning a review of its planning strategy.

“If we need to change the heights, we need to do a holistic review of the whole plan rather than a single site.

“I’ve said to Landmark I’m open to discussing changing heights when we do the plan review in two years.”

This is a fair and measured take. Waye says he's open to re-considering heights, but it must be done looking at HRMxD as a whole. That makes complete sense to me

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

This is a fair and measured take. Waye says he's open to re-considering heights, but it must be done looking at HRMxD as a whole. That makes complete sense to me

It's utter nonsense. It is like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time. This is a very bad planning regime and needs to be overturned. We cannot afford to be running proposals like this out of town on a rail.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's utter nonsense. It is like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time. This is a very bad planning regime and needs to be overturned. We cannot afford to be running proposals like this out of town on a rail.

Keith, I think you and I agree on this proposal-- I also think we can't afford to run proposals like this out of town. I think it looks great and, in fact, believe it probably could and should be taller.

I don't, however, think HRMxD has served us badly, and do believe it has brought an important certainty that has, in fact, kickstarted some great development products downtown. It's allowed us to turn an important corner in this city that, without it, I think we'd still be living in a four storey height limit hell.

In other words, I do take Waye's point that we don't want to go back to a case-by-case regime of DAs and litigation and the annoying UARB being involved in every instance.

That all being said, I think HRMxD can be amended and probably expanded to cover all of the peninsula. And I think many of its height limits can, and should, be revisited and probably significantly increased in a number of areas.

However, that process should be a full revision, not a piece by piece reform. Let's review it and re-do it right, get it passed, and reap the rewards.

My worry with Waye's comments on this count, however, is that I can now see developers putting off projects, like this one, for 2+ years, waiting on the HRMxD process, in the hopes that they will get more floors or height space. I want development NOW. And I want it QUICK. We can't afford to wait 2 years for infill like this. Downtown needs people living downtown now.

[ILoveHalifax]

Hopefully Mr Mason will not be involved when the review comes up in 2 years. Hopefully the election will come first.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Hopefully Mr Mason will not be involved when the review comes up in 2 years. Hopefully the election will come first.

I think that because Mason represents the area a lot of us here are most interested in, development-wise (the central and south peninsula), he's coming in for undue criticism because he hasn't supported every project. I disagree with him on this, but he's not some uber-NIMBY, running around rejecting projects left, right, and centre. More often than not he's been supportive of development, and pretty level-headed.

He's also fairly young, and urban-minded, and is certainly only municipal politician recently who seems to really be pursuing issues like the public lands around the Dennis Building, and the future of that whole area--apparently he's been pressing the province on the future of the building and the empty lands around it, which is a big pet issue of mine.

So I hope he is around, because he's done a lot of great work. But I also hope that when the review comes up, he's amenable to relaxing some of the height restrictions.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think that because Mason represents the area a lot of us here are most interested in, development-wise (the central and south peninsula), he's coming in for undue criticism because he hasn't supported every project. I disagree with him on this, but he's not some uber-NIMBY, running around rejecting projects left, right, and centre. More often than not he's been supportive of development, and pretty level-headed.

Well, the last two projects proposed in the district, this and the one on Coburg, have both been opposed by him because (all together now) "THEY'RE TOO TALL!!!" And that position comes from his total devotion to Andy Fillmore and his opus, HRMxD. While I agree that HRMxD is better than what we had before, that was a very low bar that needed to be surpassed. And the end product of HRMxD was very disappointing since it pandered to the Heritage loons and the height-phobic way too much. Fillmore is not infallible, and the finished product that is HRMxD proves that.

Now, with this, we see what is either an out and out mistake, or clearly an illogical and irrational height cap on this area. And the response is, "let's redo the whole thing", rather than fix the glaring problem? That makes no sense. It will take years and years to even get to that, much less finish it. In the meantime we will have lots languishing, either with run-down old buildings on them or levelled and used as parking lots. Development dollars will be invested in places that clearly want development, which is not this place, which only wants it on Fillmore's terms.

Mason needs to get his head out of Andy's ass and start doing what is good for the city, not protecting Andy.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In the meantime we will have lots languishing, either with run-down old buildings on them or levelled and used as parking lots. Development dollars will be invested in places that clearly want development, which is not this place, which only wants it on Fillmore's terms.

I would bet good money this is the opposite of what the next decade looks like.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would bet good money this is the opposite of what the next decade looks like.

Well, it's what is already happening with this site.

[Waye Mason]

I am not elected to say yes to everything. I was elected to use my judgement, and to act on the promises I made during the election. I already linked to my development page from the election - I am being consistent with what I promised to do and what I promised to do is what got me the job. I am not worried that doing what I promised during the election will suddenly result in a voter backlash.

I have voted for 150 or so development approvals and variance approvals in 18 months, voted against 3. I voted against initiation of 2 others that have not gotten to public hearing yet. I have voted for 20, 18, and 8 story buildings in C2 and R2 zones where the planning, infrastructure and direction the city is going supported the decision. And I have voted for increasing development right in my own neighbourhood, right on my own street with the Vernon/Quinpool case, which I supported against tremendous backlash from my neighbours, but I think is the right thing given the intent of the Centre Plan.

To say I am "anti development" is pretty ludicrous. But I am going to make up my own mind on a case by case basis... that's what the job calls for.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

To say I am "anti development" is pretty ludicrous. But I am going to make up my own mind on a case by case basis... that's what the job calls for.

The comments in the Herald story on this are interesting:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bus...-review-turfed

"This is not too tall. This needs to be revisited, and fast."


"Why in God's name are a handful of cranks aloud to dominate the conversation in this burg as to how the city should look. The vast, vast majority of people in this city do not give a flying fig as to how tall buildings are in the downtown or are totally exasperated with Phip Pacy and his phoney Heritage Trust, which is not a Trust at all as it has no money to do anything other than complain about every development. It is clearly a special interest group who's over riding agenda is to keep this place in the 18th century. If they were transported back there they would be complaining about Keith's Brewery and Province House being out of step with the one story hovels surrounding them. God what a place."


"This city is run by maroons. And Mason is supposed to be a "progressive" guy lol - progressive for Halifax, what kind of progress is all this I wonder? Fighting over a few feet of height. What a ridiculous conclusion by city Hall, and what a scandalous suggestion to the developer to "Wait two years". When is midterm elections so we can turf these people? I'm sure Waye can hold this issue high on his mantle for his grandchildren to see someday"


"One day the mayor and council say 'We want Halifax to be a world class city,' and the next day they say, '8 stories is too tall for a building in the downtown.'
We're all over the map - we need to make a decision if we are going to be a small city or a large town and stick to it.
If we want to be a city, we must encourage urban density and development in the downtown. There are huge financial benefits to that for HRM.
If we choose town, we will see more urban sprawl, higher taxes, less density and less population. It will add to the decline of NS.
One of the major problems is that council feels no pressure. They set their budget every year and hand it over to PVSC. PVSC then raises assessments in HRM so that the property tax yield meets the budget.
Bass-ackwards!"


"How sad. Loss of a few millions in tax revenue, and that means amenities such as safe sidewalks and rinks in other areas of HRM will not be funded. Not important to areas which already enjoy such things, but of true value to those who do not. Either downtown is an economic generator for everyone, or it is just a place to get your banking done for those who live next door."


"In other cities plan amendments take 4-8 months not 18 -24 months, there is far too much crap for developers to deal with"


"Wayne Mason seems to have a habit of turning down construction projects in Halifax. I'm beginning to feel that my family wasted their votes on this guy. The city needs to start listening to the people who pay the tax that pays their wages. The zoning laws are failing us as citizens on the peninsula, not only do the senior citizens have to wait several years to get into assisted living but people like Wayne Mason seem to take delight in towing the old Halifax anti development perspective by nixing developments, I'm still upset over the Robie street seniors complex that Wayne Mason voted against."


"The six or seven story, square, concrete, monolithic, boring ugly building syndrome is still alive and well in HRM. If building progress is measured by the drive into Halifax and the litter of clone apartment buildings visible from the 102, then we have caught up to Russia in the 1960's. Yes, there are some taller buildings in the downtown core being developed, but most have taken 15 years to get started!! Good governance HRM!!"


"But there is already taller buildings around this block! Making the developer wait two years for a rule change that may never happen is like saying 'go build your building elsewhere'. I bet if there were tax dollars in this project the rules would have been adjusted. Just look at how The Nova Centre project has been allowed to bend the rules."

Perception is reality, Mr. Watts, er, I mean, Mason. The people seem to think differently. They're pining for Bulldog Sue already. Gives the ol' reputation a real kick in the head, doesn't it?

Seriously though, you are elcted to represent the will of the people, and on this it seems pretty clear. Why you choose to go in the other direction seems to be a personal thing, and that is not why you were elected.

[JET]

Keith, I'm surprised that you are quoting the comments section of the CH and then purporting them to be the voice of 'the people'. Has it really come to this? Might be time to have a Snickers.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's utter nonsense. It is like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time. This is a very bad planning regime and needs to be overturned. We cannot afford to be running proposals like this out of town on a rail.

We also can't afford to tell developers they can do whatever they want regardless of the rules.

Not saying the height SHOULDN'T be higher, but the rules were in place before it was submitted, weren't they?

[halifaxboyns]

Let's be clear, Andy Fillmore isn't in charge of HbD - he's moved onto the Waterfront Development Corporation and second the reality is no plan is perfect. I seem to recall that since this way a new way of thinking, council agreed to revisit HbD every 5 years. So, not being fully in the loop way out in the west - has the first 5 year review happened? If so, my first comment is damn. If not - then perhaps it's time to rethink/revisit some of the height limits (not all, but perhaps a select few) to revisit the rationale behind why they were set the way they were, do some analysis of economics and see if they still work. If so (if a few example proformas show you could build under the current height limits) then I don't see a reason to change it. If the economic analysis shows the opposite and the height limit doesn't work - then the height needs to be re-examined.

We have to be careful about focusing too much on the 'big shiny box' and saying approve it approve it at the sake of some of the fundamentals of HbD. Normally, I would be one to jump on this and say do it - but without knowing the reasons for why this height was chosen, I think there was a deeper exercise here. It also begs the question to me that if we make the exception here (and go against some of the principals of HbD that determined the height as it is now) are we opening up a can of worms?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think that because Mason represents the area a lot of us here are most interested in, development-wise (the central and south peninsula), he's coming in for undue criticism because he hasn't supported every project. I disagree with him on this, but he's not some uber-NIMBY, running around rejecting projects left, right, and centre. More often than not he's been supportive of development, and pretty level-headed.

He's also fairly young, and urban-minded, and is certainly only municipal politician recently who seems to really be pursuing issues like the public lands around the Dennis Building, and the future of that whole area--apparently he's been pressing the province on the future of the building and the empty lands around it, which is a big pet issue of mine.

So I hope he is around, because he's done a lot of great work. But I also hope that when the review comes up, he's amenable to relaxing some of the height restrictions.

Have to agree with Drybrain here. Waye has done some really great work, forcing the doofuses on Council to stop ignoring / screwing the downtown, while perpetually making decisions-- usually behind closed doors under that deceptive clown Peter Kelly-- that promoted suburban sprawl interests.

Along with Savage, he's been a strong pro-downtown councillor, more effective than either Uteck or Sloane. And like DryBrain, forcing the province to sell those downtown lands, and renovate the others, is something I'm quite interested in; and, with Savage, he's one of the few Councillors who has actually taken steps.

I'm a fan of Andy Fillmore, think he's done the city a great service pushing HRMxD; a guy who studied at Harvard and decided to give up more lucrative jobs to return home and commit to improving his hometown.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Let's be clear, Andy Fillmore isn't in charge of HbD - he's moved onto the Waterfront Development Corporation and second the reality is no plan is perfect. I seem to recall that since this way a new way of thinking, council agreed to revisit HbD every 5 years. So, not being fully in the loop way out in the west - has the first 5 year review happened? If so, my first comment is damn. If not - then perhaps it's time to rethink/revisit some of the height limits (not all, but perhaps a select few) to revisit the rationale behind why they were set the way they were, do some analysis of economics and see if they still work. If so (if a few example proformas show you could build under the current height limits) then I don't see a reason to change it. If the economic analysis shows the opposite and the height limit doesn't work - then the height needs to be re-examined.

We have to be careful about focusing too much on the 'big shiny box' and saying approve it approve it at the sake of some of the fundamentals of HbD. Normally, I would be one to jump on this and say do it - but without knowing the reasons for why this height was chosen, I think there was a deeper exercise here. It also begs the question to me that if we make the exception here (and go against some of the principals of HbD that determined the height as it is now) are we opening up a can of worms?

I also don't think we can or should "blame" Fillmore for shortcomings in the plan. It was forged in a time with a Mayor that offered little direction or leadership, and a time with the Heritage Lobby was probably strongest.

Moreover, the HRM Planning bureaucracy was also a big obstacle for a better plan. There's a reason why Fillmore got the hell out of HRM planning office after HRMxD was put in place, as bureaucratic inertia and sentiment strongly favoured an old obstructionist, anti-height, anti-development bias.

This is not because planning staff are inherently anti-development, but a product of the fact that the people that bother them the most, that complain the most, are NIMBYs and Heritage Lobbyists, so they act to avoid more work and trouble-- what, institutional theory calls, the path of least resistance.

HRMxD was precisely the opposite of the path of least resistance, so we should be thankful for Filmore pushing the thing through, and truly turning around the city in the last several years.

As for HRMxD, no one is saying we need skyscrapers everywhere, but I do think height limits in certain places-- certainly in and around SGR and down around Barrington in the very core-- make very little sense.

We need more residential downtown. More residential. More residential. More residential. Say it with me, everyone.

In fact, my only concern about the Convention Centre, is that after hours, it'll be dead. That block could have been three HUGE condo developments in the King's Wharf 300K price range, bringing a massive number of more people downtown.

Downtown office tower vacancy rates are high now, and will go through the roof with more of this office space moving online. The hope, is that owners will start to re-develop old office space into new residential, like Bank of Canada.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The comments in the Herald story on this are interesting:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bus...-review-turfed


Perception is reality, Mr. Watts, er, I mean, Mason. The people seem to think differently. They're pining for Bulldog Sue already. Gives the ol' reputation a real kick in the head, doesn't it?

Seriously though, you are elcted to represent the will of the people, and on this it seems pretty clear. Why you choose to go in the other direction seems to be a personal thing, and that is not why you were elected.

Keith, it must have taken you forever to create all those different identities for the Herald site!

Seriously, I've gotten to the point of not reading the comments for most every story because it seems that the comments section brings out the 0.01 percentile crackpots who hate everything. Certainly not the "voice of the people".

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Let's be clear, Andy Fillmore isn't in charge of HbD - he's moved onto the Waterfront Development Corporation and second the reality is no plan is perfect. I seem to recall that since this way a new way of thinking, council agreed to revisit HbD every 5 years. So, not being fully in the loop way out in the west - has the first 5 year review happened? If so, my first comment is damn. If not - then perhaps it's time to rethink/revisit some of the height limits (not all, but perhaps a select few) to revisit the rationale behind why they were set the way they were, do some analysis of economics and see if they still work. If so (if a few example proformas show you could build under the current height limits) then I don't see a reason to change it. If the economic analysis shows the opposite and the height limit doesn't work - then the height needs to be re-examined.

We have to be careful about focusing too much on the 'big shiny box' and saying approve it approve it at the sake of some of the fundamentals of HbD. Normally, I would be one to jump on this and say do it - but without knowing the reasons for why this height was chosen, I think there was a deeper exercise here. It also begs the question to me that if we make the exception here (and go against some of the principals of HbD that determined the height as it is now) are we opening up a can of worms?

There is a play running in town right now called "The Department of Common Sense" about how govt bureaucracies are dysfunctional. This could be an act in that play.

We have a developer willing to spend, what, $15-20 million of his own money on a nicely designed, midrise building on some very expensive real estate in the heart of downtown that is actually shorter than the neighboring buildings, is likely to be instantly full of new residents, brings some significant tax revenue to the city and satisfies every principle people have been clamoring for - except that some arbitrary height limit that was placed on a lot 6 years ago says its too tall.

In the Department of Common Sense the memo would be written saying "change the arbitrary rule" because there is no reason to maintain it in light of the alternative. The choice is fix the mistake and take all the benefits, or don't fix the mistake and have this developer walk away and invest his money somewhere else. So in 5 or 10 years, yes, some other developer may come along, if the rule has changed, and propose something else. And if the rule is not changed, even if we do find anther developer willing to build within those rules, we end up with another sawed-off short, stubby, cheap, unremarkable building. To what end? The decision is easy and self-evident: change the rule and fix the mistake that was made.

BTW, to those chortling about the comments on the article: show me the articles with the chorus of voices calling for the mistake not to be fixed. Answer: there aren't any. It is obvious what needs to be done. So why is it not being done? The lack of common sense in this instance is shocking.

[halifaxboyns]

I'm not saying/blaming anyone for HbD. I think it's a pretty good piece of planning; so he did a good job. But like I said, no planning system is perfect. I'm not surprised Andy left and frankly, I think it was the best move for him. I think his group did a remarkable job working within the confines of the system they have now. In the last sentence, I think I've defined the problem - the system "the system they have now" (or more like the attitude they have now toward development).

The problem with planning regulation systems is there has to be a starting point - a number, a maximum height, a density. I originally wrote this question to Keith, but I pose it to everyone - what system should HRM have? When is a rule 'right' or 'wrong'? This is the challenge - what do you set the starting point as and better yet - what is the end outcome? I have the whole powerpoint for HbD and one thing I noticed was it didn't really say what the intended outcome was.

The challenge I think planning systems have (which Calgary seems to have realized) is bigger picture - what are we trying to achieve? What is the outcome we're trying to achieve? Once we know what that is - then work backwards and you achieve it.