[Halifax] Aurora & Eventide (1540 Carlton) | ? m | 8 & 6 FL | U/C

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think part of the problem, in Halifax and in a lot of other places, is that for a while after the 1970's or so these public consultations took on a kind of popularity contest or referendum feel. They are often a de facto debate on whether or not developers should be allowed to build on their property, which is totally out in left field compared to what's useful and reasonable. The meetings should be framed as an opportunity to collaborate with the developer to improve the proposal, and the locals should have input but they should not be considered the final arbiters on whether something gets built or not. They have a huge conflict of interest.

HbD got around this issue somewhat by taking height and density off the table. It's disappointing that the Centre Plan doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.

Yes, I think public consultation should happen at the beginning, before any design is proposed, take ideas into account into design, and then propose for approval via CDAC and or whatever it is called. NIMBYs don't get a say on the final design.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

The meetings should be framed as an opportunity to collaborate with the developer to improve the proposal, and the locals should have input but they should not be considered the final arbiters on whether something gets built or not. They have a huge conflict of interest.

Yes. This is a more succinct way of saying what I tried to say. These kinds of meetings are framed as yay or nay, when it should be: "The owner of this property is going to do something. How can we make it as good as possible?"

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Yes, I think public consultation should happen at the beginning, before any design is proposed, take ideas into account into design, and then propose for approval via CDAC and or whatever it is called. NIMBYs don't get a say on the final design.

The fundamental problem with public consultation is that there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate time to do it.

If you go early in the project, there's nothing for people to comment on so they end up super unfocused and they also get frustrated at the lack of details (it's scary because anything could be built)

If you wait until you actually have a design to show there's a sense of finality in it so people get their defenses up and feel like everything is a done deal. In a sense it is, because the developer has already spent a small fortune doing studies and getting renderings done and such so they're not too inclined to make any changes that actually matter.

You can't win either way, and that is the failure of public consultation.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The fundamental problem with public consultation is that there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate time to do it.

If you go early in the project, there's nothing for people to comment on so they end up super unfocused and they also get frustrated at the lack of details (it's scary because anything could be built)

If you wait until you actually have a design to show there's a sense of finality in it so people get their defenses up and feel like everything is a done deal. In a sense it is, because the developer has already spent a small fortune doing studies and getting renderings done and such so they're not too inclined to make any changes that actually matter.

You can't win either way, and that is the failure of public consultation.

Here in lies the problem - you hit the nail on the head. All we need do is look back into the Halifax media a few weeks (maybe months) ago when one of the major projects planners got torn up in the media for a public meeting in Dartmouth (site across from Penhorn). The whole purpose of the evening was really a design charette but people expected to comment on something and stormed out - the media had a field day with the fact people stormed out.

I've been a planner for over 10 years now and I don't know what the best way forward is; I think every situation may require a different sort of engagement. A general criticism I have of planners (myself too, I've done it...) is that we aren't always clear of the intentions of engagement. Why are we out here speaking to you? So I know I've worked hard to make sure the engagement is clear. If it's an open house, the first information board is the purpose of why we are here. If its a general meeting or a charette, it's on the poster/advertisement and I remind people at the very beginning. The last one I did, I even went so far as to say if people didn't understand what the meeting was for; here is the goals. If this isn't what you came to participate in, there is nothing wrong with you leaving because you may wish to participate at a different part of the process and here is where you can find out (website) where we are in the process.

We (as a profession) just need to make it clear the whole point of the meeting...otherwise people come in with a certain expectation and then the meeting fails.

My gut feeling when it comes to speaking with communities and starting with a blank sheet is the applicant (developer) should do that in advance of a formal application. But I don't always think this is a good idea - it really depends on the community.

[Dmajackson]

[DELETED DUE TO COPYRIGHT COMPLAINT]

---------------------------------

The height point I can have sympathy for in this case for reasons I have mentioned previously in this thread BUT I do not think it is drastic enough to reject the proposal as is. As for shadows a study was done and it did not show anything drastic happening. Finally HRM by Design guidelines recommend new buildings be very distinct from heritage buildings and avoid faux heritage elements.

[counterfactual]

[DELETED DUE TO COPYRIGHT COMPLAINT]

---------------------------------

The height point I can have sympathy for in this case for reasons I have mentioned previously in this thread BUT I do not think it is drastic enough to reject the proposal as is. As for shadows a study was done and it did not show anything drastic happening. Finally HRM by Design guidelines recommend new buildings be very distinct from heritage buildings and avoid faux heritage elements.[/QUOTE]

Seriously rejected? Are you kidding? Because of those ludicrous complaints? That is absolutely absurd.

Reading comments in the ANS now from the committee.... "doesn't fit" is "glassy and ostentatious" lol...

Question for those who know this better-- DJ or Someone123; please tell me that HRM planning (and maybe Council) regularly ignore these district committee findings?

Having a couple know nothing and/or ideologue activists (ie opposing anything over 5 storeys) like these clowns, basically resisting any kind of development or change based on lame NIMBY complaints, cannot and should not be taken seriously.

[Keith P.]

Time for someone at Council to grow a spine and table a motion to disband the committee. We do not need unnecessary and ludicrous decisions like this.

[RyeJay]

...and a reduction of 4 floors will make it all better?

This is pathetic.

[Drybrain]

Can't speak to the shadow concerns, but if the committee is actually recommending against partially because it's "ostentations" (which it's not) or doesn't complement the existing buildings, that's absurd. Differing architectural styles can and do exist in cities--hell, they exist right on this very block, right now.

With the recommendation against the Wellington project as well, I have to wonder if the committee actually wants densification on the peninsula. Neither project was wildly out of character with the surrounding community--modest increases in density on both cases, which is what we want, right? Significant but not destructive development?

And neither involved demolition of any existing heritage (or potential heritage) properties. I certainly hope council votes against the recommendation in one or both cases.

[halifaxboyns]

I looked at the member list for the PAC; I don't recognize anyone as being leaning towards one side or the other. The PAC was asked for an opinion - they gave it. That is their role in the planning system. They aren't a decision making body - they merely give an opinion. Now if it was a planning commission, that's another story...

Council will consider their opinion (the PAC) along with the others at the public hearing (because even if staff recommends against the DA, I suspect Council will still want a public hearing). This isn't like Skye where the made the decision not even to bother seeking public opinion, they wanted HbD to stand as it was and did not overturn the staff recommendation. For a project this small, I suspect they'd seek public feedback at a hearing...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Question for those who know this better-- DJ or Someone123; please tell me that HRM planning (and maybe Council) regularly ignore these district committee findings?

The planning process for DA's requires that the PAC be consulted and asked their opinion, much like the heritage advisory committee if it was applicable. So they have been and PAC is suggesting a no go.

Administration will put together its recommendation based on policy, public input and good planning which will either be to approve the DA or refuse it. That recommendation will be brought forward to Council.

Council will have two options (in the case of either option). If the DA recommendation is to approve it; they must give 1st reading and schedule a public hearing or they can vote no to that and the process is done and no DA (although the applicant I think can appeal that). If the recommendation is refusal, they can overturn that recommendation and schedule a public hearing or agree with the recommendation and vote it down, like I noted above.

When a public hearing is done - Council must (by law) be open to all opinions given at the hearing. They must go into it with an open mind (so the law says) and so if they are on the fence; be open to changing their opinion. They will likely give the PAC some weight to their recommendation but if Administration (the planners) give a good recommendation and focus on the public benefits - I'm sure council will see the value and vote in favour.

Most of the arguments being given are pretty typical and from what I recall of recent votes, Council has been reasonably consistent in voting to allow development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Should at least be allowed to be as tall as Park Vic given the surroundings.

[teddifax]

There isn't any need for viewplane restrictions in this area. Build even higher!!!

[ILoveHalifax]

50 floors with a revolving restaurant on top would be great.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

50 floors with a revolving restaurant on top would be great.

Then they'd be complaining about the cooking fumes.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Then they'd be complaining about the cooking fumes.

I'm sure someone would complain that the restaurant blocked their view of a chimney on another roof.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I looked at the member list for the PAC; I don't recognize anyone as being leaning towards one side or the other. The PAC was asked for an opinion - they gave it. That is their role in the planning system. They aren't a decision making body - they merely give an opinion. Now if it was a planning commission, that's another story...

Council will consider their opinion (the PAC) along with the others at the public hearing (because even if staff recommends against the DA, I suspect Council will still want a public hearing). This isn't like Skye where the made the decision not even to bother seeking public opinion, they wanted HbD to stand as it was and did not overturn the staff recommendation. For a project this small, I suspect they'd seek public feedback at a hearing...

On this District Planning Committee? There are a few people on there that shouldn't be taken seriously.

These District PACs are a joke. There seems to be no logic or process for who ends up on these committees.

Most importantly, there is absolutely no accountability or transparency.

Here's the HRM site for this PAC:

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/D78PAC/

First off, the minutes I find are overly vague. Often there is no record of who raised what question or issue. They do keep track of non-PAC members, but not what "concern" was raised by what specific member of the PAC.

Second, the committee does not record votes. I would like to see a vote count. This isn't secret ballot. Each member should be counted. I want to see who is voting against these developments and who is voting for it.


In the end, these PACs may not have decision making power, but they're really important because they purport to represent the "voice" of the local community, which gives Council or the HRM planning staff "cover" to reject a proposal if they're looking for it.

Of course, we all know that it's total BS that these PACs represent the neighbourhood. No, they represent the deeply conservative establishment, which, for the last 30 years, has opposed any kind of change, development, least of all densification.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Can't speak to the shadow concerns, but if the committee is actually recommending against partially because it's "ostentations" (which it's not) or doesn't complement the existing buildings, that's absurd. Differing architectural styles can and do exist in cities--hell, they exist right on this very block, right now.

With the recommendation against the Wellington project as well, I have to wonder if the committee actually wants densification on the peninsula. Neither project was wildly out of character with the surrounding community--modest increases in density on both cases, which is what we want, right? Significant but not destructive development?

And neither involved demolition of any existing heritage (or potential heritage) properties. I certainly hope council votes against the recommendation in one or both cases.

What makes you think that these PAC ppl "want" "densification on the peninsula" ? They don't. They're the local tea party, the GOP, basically the party of "NO".

NO to everything different or new.

And to the PAC finding that the proposal is "ostentatious", I say this:

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Time for someone at Council to grow a spine and table a motion to disband the committee. We do not need unnecessary and ludicrous decisions like this.

Let's get the Centre Plan passed to banish these idiots from the approval process for good.

You have CDAC, which is filled with professional architects and designers, and that's all you need.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The density of the original proposal would have been great for this part of SGR. Doesn't it become Coburg at the next intersection going west?