HRM Municipal Election 2012

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Oh no, modern is fine. Half the deep south end is 1950-80s modern, whatever modern was at that time. Lots of old homes on "estates" that got subdivided generation after generation, the construction, I learned while knocking on every door, is very mixed. Overall size, height, lot coverage, square footage are issue. Look again at the neighbourhood article, with the pictures. In one case the house that was torn down was classic brady bunch 1950s and replaced by a monster faux victorian. The neighbours would love to have the 1950s or even a 2010s home, just not 55 feet tall. My personal dislike of faux victorian almost matches my personal dislike for monster homes.



Dartmouth, Halifax, and maybe it is too late for Argyle, downtown. Hard to allow noise next to the suites hotel they built on Argyle... what a shame. That is going to be a very tough issue to negotiate.

Well if my memory of the peninsula LUB is correct, most areas of the south end are limited to 35' tall for single detached dwellings, with the exception of a couple spots which were recently downzoned to 30'. So I don't know how they would be 55' tall, unless it had to do with that obscure definition of height that only takes it up to the eaveline and then the 'peak' can be as high as you want? Maybe I'm not understanding the issue...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

In one case the house that was torn down was classic brady bunch 1950s and replaced by a monster faux victorian. The neighbours would love to have the 1950s or even a 2010s home, just not 55 feet tall. My personal dislike of faux victorian almost matches my personal dislike for monster homes.
Dartmouth, Halifax, and maybe it is too late for Argyle, downtown. Hard to allow noise next to the suites hotel they built on Argyle... what a shame. That is going to be a very tough issue to negotiate.

I hate faux too, but I have to disagree... those 50's style houses just don't fit in that area. There are a ton of massive original houses that are so I honestly think more of these smaller houses should be replaced with bigger ones to make it more cohesive.

You seem to be judging a bit here as to how big a house should be... this is an area of mansions around Young Ave. Some of the new designs are very suburban, but they can't be as bad as the bungalows they replace.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well if my memory of the peninsula LUB is correct, most areas of the south end are limited to 35' tall for single detached dwellings, with the exception of a couple spots which were recently downzoned to 30'. So I don't know how they would be 55' tall, unless it had to do with that obscure definition of height that only takes it up to the eaveline and then the 'peak' can be as high as you want? Maybe I'm not understanding the issue...

The issue is that HRM either permits stuff that blows past limits for R1A through DAs or they just don't enforce the rules, which is more often the case.

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I hate faux too, but I have to disagree... those 50's style houses just don't fit in that area. There are a ton of massive original houses that are so I honestly think more of these smaller houses should be replaced with bigger ones to make it more cohesive.

Well then 25-30% of the houses in area need to be replaced! There is a ton of modern in the area, especially on the estate land that had no development until the 1950/60s along the arm, around AST, the old RCMP commanders home, etc. I think if you walk the streets of the BARTIS neighbourhood or the Arm you will be surprised

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

You seem to be judging a bit here as to how big a house should be... this is an area of mansions around Young Ave. Some of the new designs are very suburban, but they can't be as bad as the bungalows they replace.

You should read the article, I am really clear about the neighbourhoods I am talking about. There are 10-12 distinct neighbourhoods in D7, some have mansions, most do not.

It is okay to have a conversation about what we want to see and what we don't want to see and then make stronger bylaws/actually enforce them.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Well then 25-30% of the houses in area need to be replaced! There is a ton of modern in the area, especially on the estate land that had no development until the 1950/60s along the arm, around AST, the old RCMP commanders home, etc. I think if you walk the streets of the BARTIS neighbourhood or the Arm you will be surprised.

It is okay to have a conversation about what we want to see and what we don't want to see and then make stronger bylaws/actually enforce them.

I can guarantee know the neighborhoods better than you. I honestly believe for the value of the land that 25-30% of the houses definitely need to be replaced. If I lived in Halifax and had the money I would do so because it is one of the more desirable places to live in the city.

If you can afford to buy a house one of these lots, you can afford to build something new on it. They are wildly overpriced for what is on them.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I can guarantee know the neighborhoods better than you. I honestly believe for the value of the land that 25-30% of the houses definitely need to be replaced..

Again, read the article. Not saying renewal and replacement should not be allowed, am saying that the rules need to be strengthened and actually enforced.

[Hali87]

Thanks for your response, Waye, and sorry about the delay in mine. I'm living in the BC interior for the winter and the internet connection here is not good lol.

I feel that you have a strong vision for the district and the municipality and that your ideas are very well thought out. I like your approach to the new houses as well - get people talking about what they like and don't like. Not everyone will agree on everything, but at least they'll become aware of each others' concerns. Personally, I cringe a little bit whenever I see vinyl siding on the Peninsula, though I understand that it has its practical advantages. As for house sizes, I find that in the most attractive residential neighbourhoods in Halifax, most of the houses have a similar size footprint, even if they are not all the same height or architectural style.

Anyway, you seem to be a good voice of reason - hopefully your ability to look at the big picture will not be subverted by louder but less rational council members as has been the trend in the past. I look forward to seeing the switch in gears when the new council takes over.

[spaustin]

Wasn't sure if this warranted another topic, but I'm doing a series on campaign finance on Spacing Atlantic. Looking at the where the money came from in the 2012 election and whether we should look at changing any rules. Savage has been raising the issue, but the province has to give HRM the power. Anyway, part 1 is up.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/09/1...-part-1-worry/

[Colin May]

1

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Wasn't sure if this warranted another topic, but I'm doing a series on campaign finance on Spacing Atlantic. Looking at the where the money came from in the 2012 election and whether we should look at changing any rules. Savage has been raising the issue, but the province has to give HRM the power. Anyway, part 1 is up.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/09/1...-part-1-worry/

Councillors buy votes through careful distribution of their District Capital funds.
In order to make it fairer to all candidates I suggest no distributions be allowed after September 1 in the year preceding the election.
The amounts and recipients for April 1- June 30 2015 were made public on Spetember 11. All payments and proposed payments should be posted within 7 days of approval.

Councillor distributions, see attachment #4 and note several councillors have a large amount that is yet to be distributed.


http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCfi...916afsc911.pdf

[Keith P.]

Those funds represent over a million taxpayer dollars that are handed out with virtually no oversight nor needs assessment. For example, I see the "Rehteah Parsons Society" stung most council members for a donation that they never would have received had they gone through the usual grant application route. I would suggest these funds be eliminated.

[spaustin]

I like the route that Watts and Mason have taken on this with the community budgeting process. Takes the patronage type aspect out of the equation.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I like the route that Watts and Mason have taken on this with the community budgeting process. Takes the patronage type aspect out of the equation.

Not really. Just allows the better-organized groups to get their way.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not really. Just allows the better-organized groups to get their way.

I disagree on that. Yes it is the better organized groups, but the way its structured, you can't just show up and vote for your project. You have to cast votes for a few others. Builds relationships and knowledge between non-profits and takes the patronage element out.


Part 2 of my series is up: where the money came from. A chart to tell the tale



http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2015/09/1...-2-developers/