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

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not blaming Andy either, although I do think he drastically oversold the entire thing, inevitably leading to disappointment, gave in too easily to the anti-tall building phobics, and got way too deep into micromanaging some of the desired behaviors prescribed in the final document. It is still better than what was there before. It's just that the flaws are now becoming apparent, and there is no urgency to fix them.

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.

I kept hearing two things: remove the roadblocks that kept anything from being built in the d/t for 20 years, and increase population density. That's why this site is a fail on both counts.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by 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.

My only worry is that in a full review of HRMxD we end up with *even worse* height limits. It's entirely possible that the reason why the NIMBY/Heritage Lobby have been phoning it in lately, is that they're gearing up for the 5 year review. I don't know.

I just hope that HRMxD is the baseline, the starting point. And we only move up from there, in terms of height.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I'm not blaming Andy either, although I do think he drastically oversold the entire thing, inevitably leading to disappointment, gave in too easily to the anti-tall building phobics, and got way too deep into micromanaging some of the desired behaviors prescribed in the final document. It is still better than what was there before. It's just that the flaws are now becoming apparent, and there is no urgency to fix them.



I kept hearing two things: remove the roadblocks that kept anything from being built in the d/t for 20 years, and increase population density. That's why this site is a fail on both counts.

I don't think it's been a failure; it's played a key role in a turnaround for downtown. Big time. But, it can be improved, I think. Definitely.

But if we start going around calling it a failure, then we play into the hands of the Sprawl/NIMBY/Heritage Lobby. As much as we think there are flaws, the STV/Heritage crowd hated it with a deep passion. Just think: we went from 4 storeys as of right, to 20+ in some places. They would love to see HRMxD tossed out as a "failure" and start from scratch, which would be a huge set back on the gains we've made under this planning document.

Instead, the message has to be:

* HRMxD has been a hugely important document for progress downtown, and the results prove it: look at the cranes downtown, after 20 years of nothing.

* That said, we could be doing even better, with some improvements in HRMxD, like a more streamlined approval process for smaller developments or improvements, and re-examining unnecessarily low height limits in places.

* And now, with the Ivany Report, Halifax has an even bigger responsibility to be the economic engine for the province and region. Planning plays an important role in the city's economic development. Sprawl leads to low density development that is costly to service. We need intense density downtown.

* And unnecessarily low height limits in large sectors of downtown undermine high density development and the related economic growth and benefits it fosters.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't think it's been a failure; it's played a key role in a turnaround for downtown. Big time. But, it can be improved, I think. Definitely.

But if we start going around calling it a failure, then we play into the hands of the Sprawl/NIMBY/Heritage Lobby.

I am not calling it a failure, just flawed. These flaws, like the one related to this location, need to be addressed.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I took a few screen captures from the link you provided. It looks decent except for the blank wall, which I think is unavoidable unless they buy the adjacent property. It is certainly in a great location being in a scenic area close to shops on Spring Garden Road.



.

If HRMxD wanted to make a useful amendment to their precious document then they should put strict guidelines around blank walls. This is probably the worst case of all the blank walls downtown. This shows how little the developer really cares about the project.

[teddifax]

Since the blank wall is next to a heritage building that will not be developed, why not put in windows.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Empire

If HRMxD wanted to make a useful amendment to their precious document then they should put strict guidelines around blank walls. This is probably the worst case of all the blank walls downtown. This shows how little the developer really cares about the project.

Didn't notice that horrific blank wall. That'll have to be fixed.

[midasmull]

Originally Posted by teddifax

Since the blank wall is next to a heritage building that will not be developed, why not put in windows.

I'm not familiar with commercial/apartment building code but the residential building code has a requirement that if a building is constructed to the property line, it isn't allowed to have windows - it's fire safety/containment issue. As far as the code is concerned, it doesn't matter that the house next door is a heritage property and we think it will never be developed - if something unfortunate were to happen to the house (fire?) and the lot was redeveloped, a tall building could conceivably be built up to the property line so this building has to be prepared for that not-likely-eventuality.

While it is plausible to get variances to certain by-laws, I'm not even sure there is a mechanism to allow for a variance to the building code.

It would be nice if they could pretty it up though.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by midasmull

I'm not familiar with commercial/apartment building code but the residential building code has a requirement that if a building is constructed to the property line, it isn't allowed to have windows - it's fire safety/containment issue. As far as the code is concerned, it doesn't matter that the house next door is a heritage property and we think it will never be developed - if something unfortunate were to happen to the house (fire?) and the lot was redeveloped, a tall building could conceivably be built up to the property line so this building has to be prepared for that not-likely-eventuality.

While it is plausible to get variances to certain by-laws, I'm not even sure there is a mechanism to allow for a variance to the building code.

It would be nice if they could pretty it up though.

Yes it is a code requirement that any building closer than 5ft? to a property line is not allowed windows. This is where HRMxD has to push for the building on the blank wall side to match the rest of the building. This side could be finished with cladding and non-operational windows mounted to the concrete slab. This blank wall, if it sticks, will look absurd from citadel hill. Maybe they will shelve it if no additional height is approved.

Another option for change would be to require the setback above three floors to satisify the code requirement so real windows could be incorporated. Look at this building with a view of citadel hill lost and the appearance destroyed because of a few extra square ft. of leasable space. The Homburg building was built in 1984 and we are still waiting for another building to cover up the blank wall. The Homburg blank wall is even worse because it faces the mouth of the harbour so tenants get no view.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by midasmull

I'm not familiar with commercial/apartment building code but the residential building code has a requirement that if a building is constructed to the property line, it isn't allowed to have windows - it's fire safety/containment issue. As far as the code is concerned, it doesn't matter that the house next door is a heritage property and we think it will never be developed - if something unfortunate were to happen to the house (fire?) and the lot was redeveloped, a tall building could conceivably be built up to the property line so this building has to be prepared for that not-likely-eventuality.

While it is plausible to get variances to certain by-laws, I'm not even sure there is a mechanism to allow for a variance to the building code.

It would be nice if they could pretty it up though.

I don't believe there is a variance mechanism in the building code; I'm not familiar with one out here in Calgary.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

But if we start going around calling it a failure, then we play into the hands of the Sprawl/NIMBY/Heritage Lobby. As much as we think there are flaws, the STV/Heritage crowd hated it with a deep passion. Just think: we went from 4 storeys as of right, to 20+ in some places. They would love to see HRMxD tossed out as a "failure" and start from scratch, which would be a huge set back on the gains we've made under this planning document.

Wow, this is scary. I think the lobby as you describe it can win either way... they may be using this interim time of major construction on other sites to eliminate the possibilities of future "tall" developments. That being said, as long as the hipster crowd doesn't fill the void, they will be quite old by the time. My hope is that immigration also dilutes the nutjobs.

Where are the new 20+ story as of rights? (that didn't exist before... as I know there were some awarded back in the day like the international place site or the trinity one).

[halifaxboyns]

To put it simply, there are two mechanisms for people to make change to the plan once it is approved: At designated review times (by soliciting the planners and making the case for change) or submitting an application to change the zoning maps to allow for more height.

That has and always have been the mechanisms for change - but ultimately Regional Council are the decision makers. So whether we agree/disagree with the map heights, the system provides opportunities to make a change to them. While I like the building, if the 5 year review has come and gone then the owner should make an application to change the zoning map to allow for increased height.

I wouldn't say that there are 20+ storey buildings as of right, but certainly the Citadell Inn block was all done as of right - there was no DA process there and that would likely fall into the 'tall' category with the folks who don't like HbD.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Wow, this is scary. I think the lobby as you describe it can win either way... they may be using this interim time of major construction on other sites to eliminate the possibilities of future "tall" developments. That being said, as long as the hipster crowd doesn't fill the void, they will be quite old by the time. My hope is that immigration also dilutes the nutjobs.

Where are the new 20+ story as of rights? (that didn't exist before... as I know there were some awarded back in the day like the international place site or the trinity one).

Hm, my calculations were overstated; I was thinking that the 49 meter post-bonus height around SGR (near Park Lane) would get you that high, in terms of storeys, but it's more like 15 storeys as of right.