HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 1:41 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
If this does not go thru the church should sell the lot and a slum like on the corner of North and Windsor could be put there.
That's what they deserve to get. This height phobia must stop.

Someone (MASON!!!) should raise this as a real possibility if they vote this down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 1:57 AM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
If I were involved in that church, I'd buy lots of paint and have a graffiti party, allow all the gangs to paint all over the building, leave it for 5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 2:03 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Defeated, 10-6.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 2:05 AM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 964
Seriously...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 2:26 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,115
Bah. Foolishness.

BUT: Before anyone starts going on about anti-development sentiment in Halifax, I've got to be the stick in the mud and say that this outcome could have happened anywhere. Even in Toronto, about 85% of the city is considered "stable residential neighbourhoods" where "no physical change is anticipated" according to that city's official plan. And the Spirit Place site is basically the definition of a "stable residential neighbourhood."

So don't chalk this up to Halifax. Chalk it up to the pervasive obsession with "compatibility" that afflicts city planning nationwide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 4:14 AM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Friggin Nimbys.

I thought the rendering was a very nice building and sized well for the neighbourhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 4:16 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
That is REALLY disappointing. This project is so appropriate for this site.

I worked an internship related to this project, attended both public information meetings and the reasoning against the project was the usual overblown NIMBYism. The project isn't tall and it blends in nicely with the existing houses and adjacent apartment building.

I recall one woman turned to me and voiced her concern that, because the church could not legally discriminate against who moved into the seniors residences, unsavoury characters like SINGLE MOTHERS might move into the neighbourhood. Via an old folks home.

Another person speaking against the project burst into tears at the podium for no particular reason.

At least in Toronto they have a strategy of adding midrise density along busier streets, and in those areas taller buildings flank areas of single-family homes without causing any sort of traffic issue or urban decay or whatever. The added density helps support local businesses and other amenities.

These NIMBYs are inadvertently making the traffic situation on the peninsula worse. Developers look at situations like this, think "why bother?" and throw up another apartment building in Clayton Park where everyone drives into town.

Then the city spends billions to widen highways and build new bridges and people wonder why their taxes are so high and other services are cut.

These protracted debates over seven storey buildings are so trivial...a building of this size is nothing, particularly with all the setbacks and the placement of the lowrise chapel. This project has an appropriate design, an admirable social aspect and it's an inventive way for the church to adapt to a shrinking congregation size...really a shame.

What options do they have now? Can they appeal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 4:16 AM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
Is there a breakdown of who voted how?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 6:00 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
What options do they have now? Can they appeal?
Presumably they can appeal to the NSUARB, which will in all likelihood allow the proposal to move forward, just like almost everything downtown pre-HbD.

I'm also guessing that NIMBYs would have appealed this had council voted in favour. It is not clear what the point is of having regional council vote on developments like this, other than the brownie points that certain councillors get for pandering to NIMBYs instead of following good planning practices. It's a stupid system that needs further reform.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 2:49 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
[I]HRM rejects seniors complex
July 31, 2013 - 9:01pm LAURA FRASER CITY HALL REPORTER

Quote:
Proposed seven-storey building violated zoning rules, councillors decide
Halifax regional council killed a proposed seniors housing complex Tuesday night after opponents argued a seven-storey building would violate zoning and affect property values in the west-end neighbourhood.

The congregation at St. John’s United Church conceived the idea for the project about seven years ago while discussing the future of its land at Windsor and Willow streets.

The co-chairwoman of the church’s development team said the project would have filled the need for affordable housing in the urban core, while making it possible for the shrinking church group to build and maintain a new home.

“Obviously people are disappointed,” Louisa Horne said Wednesday. “It’s been a lot of effort to put forward something that we thought was a very valuable and needed addition to our neighbourhood.
Read More: thechronicleherald.ca

Personally I think this project should of been passed however seeing it rejected isn't too disappointing. The only I worry about is the building will sit there slowly falling apart while another project is conceived, and passed (or rejected again). The only way the neighbourhood will allow anything to go ahead is if it's townhouses (at the most dense). Since a new church is the desired outcome I don't think it financially viable for the organization to have that outcome with such a low density.

My prediction is the church will sit in ruins for years while the organization tries to get a financially viable idea on the table. Eventually they will have no choice but to give up and sell the land to a developer who will then develop a much worse building for the area with none of the advantages (ie seniors & affordable housing).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 3:28 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I don't believe there is an appeal mechanism when council refuses to implement a change to the MPS. There is however, if the MPS is changed and then you don't get a DA. Someone should check that though - I'm a little rusty on this stuff.

That said; I think the sticking point for many was the report that was written and the fact administration was not recommending the proposal (yet again because of height). I was disappointed in a few (typically supportive) councilors focusing on the report...I think that report could easily have gone either way. I'm not going to fault planning staff; they wrote what they felt was appropriate. There is some good out of this - the fact that many saw the staff recommendation as important. There was a time in the past where if staff said no; that would get chucked and a project be approved (which from a planning perspective may not have been appropriate). The fact they stuck with staff's recommendation on Skye and here; is a small silver lining to me (emphasis - small).

That said; it troubles me that a building that meets the ratio that the Regional Centre Plan will likely recommend (of no more than 1.5x taller than the Road right-of-way) wasn't supported. Without knowing the back story; there may have been reasons to recommend against - I won't presume. Personally, if I had been the planner dealing with the file I would've made it clear that I wanted three things: (1) The height of the building at the low density residential interface must step down to no greater than the maximum height allowed in the R-2 zone (the land use next door - not the height of the existing houses). Houses come and go - so that must be taken into account. (2) Privacy screens on any balconies which may overlook into other yards, to try to minimize things and manufactured obscured glass for things like bathrooms. Wherever possible, move windows so they don't face into yards - but some within reason (use of transom windows usually helps). (3) Plant a row of large caliper trees along the property lines adjacent to the low density to help mitigate the impact of the building and reduce privacy concerns.

As a planner - this stuff isn't rocket science. This is what we do out west usually all the time. The massing might have needed a bit of breaking up; but it's not hard. I don't think it will take 5 years to come back; but ultimately council makes the call.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 7:13 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoser111 View Post
Is there a breakdown of who voted how?
Yes. What was the breakdown on voting?

I'm sick and tired of the NIMBY vote in this city killing every reasonable and basic development.

I'm sick and tired of Councillors without the backbone to do what is right, or the brain to do what every planning staff in every major city is doing.

I'm sick and tired of the reality that no matter that supporters for this proposal outnumbered the detractors by 3-to-1, just because a few big mouths show up at some lame public forum, Councillors pander to their typical complaints about wind, shadows, height, traffic.

Such complete BS.

Votes like this remind me why we can't have nice things in this city.

We simply do not have the Municipal Council or HRM staff with the backbone to do what is right.

To do what cities all across the country have figured out, and are already working towards: limiting costs by fighting sprawl and building higher density vibrant communities and urban spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 7:18 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 don't believe there is an appeal mechanism when council refuses to implement a change to the MPS. There is however, if the MPS is changed and then you don't get a DA. Someone should check that though - I'm a little rusty on this stuff.

That said; I think the sticking point for many was the report that was written and the fact administration was not recommending the proposal (yet again because of height). I was disappointed in a few (typically supportive) councilors focusing on the report...I think that report could easily have gone either way. I'm not going to fault planning staff; they wrote what they felt was appropriate. There is some good out of this - the fact that many saw the staff recommendation as important. There was a time in the past where if staff said no; that would get chucked and a project be approved (which from a planning perspective may not have been appropriate). The fact they stuck with staff's recommendation on Skye and here; is a small silver lining to me (emphasis - small).

That said; it troubles me that a building that meets the ratio that the Regional Centre Plan will likely recommend (of no more than 1.5x taller than the Road right-of-way) wasn't supported. Without knowing the back story; there may have been reasons to recommend against - I won't presume. Personally, if I had been the planner dealing with the file I would've made it clear that I wanted three things: (1) The height of the building at the low density residential interface must step down to no greater than the maximum height allowed in the R-2 zone (the land use next door - not the height of the existing houses). Houses come and go - so that must be taken into account. (2) Privacy screens on any balconies which may overlook into other yards, to try to minimize things and manufactured obscured glass for things like bathrooms. Wherever possible, move windows so they don't face into yards - but some within reason (use of transom windows usually helps). (3) Plant a row of large caliper trees along the property lines adjacent to the low density to help mitigate the impact of the building and reduce privacy concerns.

As a planner - this stuff isn't rocket science. This is what we do out west usually all the time. The massing might have needed a bit of breaking up; but it's not hard. I don't think it will take 5 years to come back; but ultimately council makes the call.
Strongly, *strongly* disagree that "staff can't be blamed" here. HRM planning staff right now are one of the biggest obstacles to better planning in this city.

If this staff cared at all about meeting RP targets, then this would have been recommended as approved.

No wonder we can't meet our already pathetic 25% urban growth targets (16% in the last 6 years) because of staff reports like this.

7 storeys on two major roads in this neighbourhood is not too high. It should have been recommended as approved. This lame HRM staff decision gave cover to Councillors without the backbone to stand up to NIMBYs.

Zero silver lining. Zeroes all around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 7:23 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Presumably they can appeal to the NSUARB, which will in all likelihood allow the proposal to move forward, just like almost everything downtown pre-HbD.

I'm also guessing that NIMBYs would have appealed this had council voted in favour. It is not clear what the point is of having regional council vote on developments like this, other than the brownie points that certain councillors get for pandering to NIMBYs instead of following good planning practices. It's a stupid system that needs further reform.
Judging by the story in the ANS, someone needs to tell the church they should appeal.

I hope you're right about this going forward.

I also agree about council votes. WTF is the point?

Does Toronto city government have a vote on every damn proposal in the city? After the public is consulted to develop Centre Plan, all of this stuff should go directly to a planning committee or UARB to make simple decision on whether it conforms or not. If it does, it goes forward.

Screw the NIMBYs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 11:44 AM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Yes. What was the breakdown on voting?

I'm sick and tired of the NIMBY vote in this city killing every reasonable and basic development.

I'm sick and tired of Councillors without the backbone to do what is right, or the brain to do what every planning staff in every major city is doing.

I'm sick and tired of the reality that no matter that supporters for this proposal outnumbered the detractors by 3-to-1, just because a few big mouths show up at some lame public forum, Councillors pander to their typical complaints about wind, shadows, height, traffic.

Such complete BS.

Votes like this remind me why we can't have nice things in this city.

We simply do not have the Municipal Council or HRM staff with the backbone to do what is right.

To do what cities all across the country have figured out, and are already working towards: limiting costs by fighting sprawl and building higher density vibrant communities and urban spaces.
The only names I've seen thus far are from the article in today's CH.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...eniors-complex

Jennifer Watts as abstaining due to conflict, and Waye Mason voting against.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 2:28 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Strongly, *strongly* disagree that "staff can't be blamed" here. HRM planning staff right now are one of the biggest obstacles to better planning in this city.

If this staff cared at all about meeting RP targets, then this would have been recommended as approved.

No wonder we can't meet our already pathetic 25% urban growth targets (16% in the last 6 years) because of staff reports like this.

7 storeys on two major roads in this neighbourhood is not too high. It should have been recommended as approved. This lame HRM staff decision gave cover to Councillors without the backbone to stand up to NIMBYs.

Zero silver lining. Zeroes all around.
It can't be just about approving everything - there are going to be times that staff will recommend against, that's just the way it is. They will have their reasons and to be honest, it's been weeks since I read the report.

One option which could've been considered was to approve the amendments, but pass a motion arising that required administration to work with the developer to reduce the mass of the building by x stories. Then when the DA came back if they weren't happy, they could've voted it down.

What I found a bit concerning though was this hang up with zoning. The zoning doesn't matter when a DA is in play. I know of a few examples where uses not normally allowed in zones were approved - there is an apartment building on Springvalle Avenue which is in an R1 zone because council decided to approve a DA there. So the zoning has no meaning...but they were very hung up on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 6:31 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
This no appeal thing was bothering me this afternoon because I remember hearing someone bring up a lack of appeal.

It dawned on me at the gym where I heard it - it was the public hearing for the Quinpool Road development (June 25). It was Alan Ruffman himself that brought up (in his comments) that a plan amendment is not appealable. I would assume then, that goes both ways - meaning that if council says no, there is no appeal by the church.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 10:24 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoser111 View Post
The only names I've seen thus far are from the article in today's CH.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...eniors-complex

Jennifer Watts as abstaining due to conflict, and Waye Mason voting against.
I am pretty disappointed that Waye Mason voted against this.

Mostly, because he's one of the guys in there is who apprised of the issues. He knows what this city needs to get to the next level. He knows we are never going to increase infill and improve density on the peninsula to support small businesses and vibrant communities with decisions like this.

He knows better.

Yet, even when we elect people who know better, we end up with this result.

NIMBYs rule this town. It's never going to change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 10:31 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
It can't be just about approving everything - there are going to be times that staff will recommend against, that's just the way it is. They will have their reasons and to be honest, it's been weeks since I read the report.

One option which could've been considered was to approve the amendments, but pass a motion arising that required administration to work with the developer to reduce the mass of the building by x stories. Then when the DA came back if they weren't happy, they could've voted it down.

What I found a bit concerning though was this hang up with zoning. The zoning doesn't matter when a DA is in play. I know of a few examples where uses not normally allowed in zones were approved - there is an apartment building on Springvalle Avenue which is in an R1 zone because council decided to approve a DA there. So the zoning has no meaning...but they were very hung up on this.
I don't think HRM should "approve everything". But here is the basis for their rejection. There was no concern over "traffic, wind or shadows" based on studies done. Rather:

Quote:
Based upon a detailed review of the site, its low-density surroundings and the existing planning policies and zoning context, it is found that the proposal is too large and is too significant of a change for the area,
Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...eniors-complex

In other words, because of "low density surroundings" we can't have a slight mid-density development. Freaking 7 storeys, FFS.

Most of the fricking peninsula is low density. How are we EVER going to battle sprawl and meet pathetically low RP urban growth targets where any of these areas are off limits to even the most modest and meager forms of increased density? A freaking seniors complex in an abandoned church.

Just shameful. The entire thing. A clownish, embarrassing, pandering, and shameful excuse for municipal government.

I suppose people have figured out my opinion on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2013, 11:54 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I don't think HRM should "approve everything". But here is the basis for their rejection. There was no concern over "traffic, wind or shadows" based on studies done. Rather:



Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...eniors-complex

In other words, because of "low density surroundings" we can't have a slight mid-density development. Freaking 7 storeys, FFS.

Most of the fricking peninsula is low density. How are we EVER going to battle sprawl and meet pathetically low RP urban growth targets where any of these areas are off limits to even the most modest and meager forms of increased density? A freaking seniors complex in an abandoned church.

Just shameful. The entire thing. A clownish, embarrassing, pandering, and shameful excuse for municipal government.

I suppose people have figured out my opinion on this.
Tell us what you really think!
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 10:43 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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