[Bedford_DJ]

I think we should have a thread where everyones opinion on HRM by Design can be together. For anyone unfamiliar with HRM by Design it is a committee that has put together what they think downtown Halifax should look like in the future. This includes the area bordered by Upper Water St., Cogswell, Citadel Hill, South Park St, Morris, Barrington (minus DalTech), Barrington Superstore, and Pier 21. There is a draft up on their website (www.hrmbydesign.ca):

Downtown Halifax of the future
Final draft of HRM By Design report to be released today
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
Mon. Apr 7 - 5:34 AM

THIS IS A CITY in which residents still refer to one of two spans across Halifax Harbour, a structure that opened 38 years ago, as "the new bridge."

It’s a place some folks have said, perhaps facetiously, should adopt the following motto: Halifax — Progress Without Change.

Old habits die hard here, but the first decade of the 21st century is going to bring a shift in the way urban planners and developers do things downtown.

As a result, if all goes well, Halifax’s central core will evolve into a lively, people-friendly place with downtown residents, workers, business owners and tourists living in harmony.

Heritage properties and new highrise buildings will coexist in the Halifax Regional Municipality of the future. Affordable housing will be available, and public transit upgraded.

The cost? So far, that’s unknown.

But many costs associated with the renewal effort are to be handled by the private sector, developers who’ll likely be improving existing properties and paying to build more esthetically pleasing new ones.

Plans for downtown’s refurbishment come from the city’s HRM by Design study, an urban revitalization plan in the works for about 20 months. A 17-member task force assigned to the $405,400 project envisions a downtown that’s livable, distinct and vibrant.

Planners want 16,000 people to move downtown within the next 15 years, Halifax regional council heard at a city hall meeting in February. They’d also like to see a million square feet of new office space downtown in the next decade or so.

On Monday, the municipality’s final draft of the downtown plan is to be released. Public review of the proposal is to continue until April 23. Copies of the plan will be available electronically and in print.

City hall is encouraging people to review the draft and submit comments to the HRM by Design gurus. An open house will be held April 16 at the World Trade and Convention Centre in Halifax.

The proposed downtown vision, guided by consultants from Toronto, would manage growth and development in the central core over the next 25 years.

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown), a task force member, said recently that a renaissance for the downtown, parts of which have been neglected for years, is long overdue. She urged residents, workers, employers, visitors and property owners to contribute to the planning process by commenting on the consultants’ final draft.

"We’re hoping that by June, we’ll be bringing the full contents of the (final) report to regional council forward," Ms. Sloane said.

A public hearing on the study will probably be held before July.

According to the city’s consultants, a new-and-improved downtown should include:

•"Defined and distinct . . . precincts."

•A protected and "vibrant historic heart."

•Various open spaces and "streets that support . . . walking."

•A downtown that’s transit-oriented.

•A central core that reinforces civic pride.

Project manager Andy Fill-more, a city hall staffer, said the precinct idea is relatively simple. Planners are proposing nine downtown neighbourhoods be designated.

Mr. Fillmore said "a clear mission statement" for each district — areas that share a common geography but have distinct elements — would be established.

"The policy for each precinct is developed around acknowledging, protecting and perpetuating those . . . characteristics." Not everyone agrees with the HRM by Design concept, of course, and the consultants have received candid criticism from opponents.

Haligonian Janet Morris is worried the city’s historic structures will suffer under the proposed revitalization scheme. Tall buildings near heritage properties, she feels, should be verboten.

"Halifax is known as the City of Trees," she said last year in comments posted on a local website. "This is a clue — the height of our buildings in the historic core should not exceed the tree canopy. Let there be light and air for everyone."

A summary of feedback provided to the municipality’s design team at a public forum in November shows the perennially contentious issue of height is not in danger of being knocked down soon.

"Height is fine," an observer wrote, "in the right spot."

Another warned about tall buildings affecting such heritage sites as Halifax city hall, Province House and Government House.

One person noted there are unattractive low-rise buildings downtown and was concerned they could be joined by taller mistakes. "Ugly short buildings may be bad," the commenter wrote, "but ugly, tall, overpowering buildings are even worse."

Said a tall-building supporter: "I would like to see more height in the Cogswell area. I am also concerned about the height restriction in a lot of the downtown area."

Planners are recommending a height limit of about six storeys for part of downtown, the "vibrant historic heart," Mr. Fillmore said. He said that district would include Historic Properties and parts of Barrington Street.

Outside of that zone, "a balance" will have to be struck between heritage preservation and allowing for modern architecture, Mr. Fillmore said.

When it comes to reviewing, approving and appealing future developments, downtown planners want municipal politicians to have the final say, on appeal, instead of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Mr. Fillmore said proposals would be considered and authorized by a "site plan review" group of municipal staff and a design-review committee made up of citizens.

Progress without change?

Not in the scenario shaped by the HRM by Design team.

Mr. Fillmore said changes are definitely in the offing, such as the approval and appeal processes for development proposals. But he acknowledged several are subject to amendments to provincial legislation. He said the city is making progress on that front.

On Monday, to obtain a free copy of the final draft of the downtown plan, a five-volume report, go to www.hrmbydesign.ca or go to the planners’ office at the Halifax ferry terminal on George Street.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)

[someone123]

I like most of what I see in HRM by Design but I'm not going to get excited about it until after it's actually accepted by council and some money is devoted to projects like the Barrington Street historic district. Until those things happen it's all talk and just like dozens of other studies in the city that never amounted to anything.

Predictably many of the comments in the article are terrible. No buildings above the tree canopy? I swear most people have no clue when it comes to the actual realities of planning and development. Other comments like "height is fine in the right spot" are totally meaningless.

[Jonovision]

Don't forget, this plan is not just for downtown Halifax, it includes the entire penninsula, and Dartmouth within the circumferential.

I have very mixed feelings for HRMByDesign. The fact that its happening, and people are talking is great! But some of the principles I have a problem with. Its almost like too much order is put in place in some instances. For example, they say that the ratio between a buildings height and the width of the street should be 1. Meaning equal, and that this makes a great street. I would certainly beg to differ.....I can think of many tight little streets with no sunlight that are amazing!
My other beef stems from a discussion in class last week. We were looking at Spring Garden Road. And we came to the conclusion that the most interesting, and exciting part of that street lies at the corner of South Park and Spring. Where Dairy Queen and Mexicali Rosa's are located. This tiny stretch is so jam packed with stores, restaurants, and bars, the signs are overwhelming.....and its GREAT! HRM by Design would kill the opportunity for this to exist or be learned from.
These are two flaws that I see, there are probably more. but I'm still only half way through the first document :P

Sorry for the rant...these thoughts have been in my head for the past 2 weeks.

[Bedford_DJ]

I get off my bus at SGR & South Park and even at 830 in the morning you can feel the vibrancy of the street and how urban and energetic it feels. All the people walking to work, the sounds of buses whizzing by, the beautiful buildings, Victoria and Public Gardens, the newspaper people offering the Metro to passerbyers, ect. Hopefully HRM by Design will consider this into their vision and encourage the growth of this wonderful area. One thing i would love to see happen is the proposal for the corner of Brenton Pl. and judging by the report HRMBY supports the proposal! :)

[someone123]

Well many of the suggested building heights don't adhere to the 1:1 width/height ratio. Ultimately I think those will win out over any guidelines in the report.

I like the guidelines for about 2/3 of new buildings. I think the downtown area needs a large number of small or medium scale infill projects with good urban design that serves more or less just to reinforce what's already there. They give some good examples of buildings like this on Barrington such as an addition above the Sam the Record Man buildings and new buildings for the Birks site.

For Barrington specifically I don't have much of a problem with strict design requirements since the plan is to put incentives in place to go along with them. For other areas it's a bit murkier, and there should also be room for some novel projects and landmark buildings like United Gulf, especially around the waterfront. It would be a mistake to try to turn the whole downtown area into some weird 1910s era Paris/Boston clone, though in practice I doubt this is going to happen when developers are actually putting forward proposals under HRM by Design.

[Keith P.]

I saw Fillmore interviewed on the news Monday and his comments seemed pretty naive. He was saying once the proposal was accepted that developers would be able to get approvals quickly as there would be "no negotiation" on the requirements. Presumably a proposal one storey taller or otherwise marginally outside the guidelines would be summarily rejected. That kind of approach totally ignores realities like economics, especially as the years go by, and would limit possibilities. I think that kind of dogmatic approach is wrong, but is typical of what one often finds in planning theory.

I also disagree with the maximum height for any building being limited to 21 storeys. Why would we do that? Is 21 storeys all that much different from 27 or 32 storeys? That seems ridiculous. Why would be limit ourselves in such an arbitrary way?

I suspect the thing will go off the rails fairly quickly.

[phrenic]

I also disagree with the maximum height for any building being limited to 21 storeys. Why would we do that? Is 21 storeys all that much different from 27 or 32 storeys? That seems ridiculous. Why would be limit ourselves in such an arbitrary way?

I can agree with this. These arbitrary limits work in certain areas around viewplanes and whatnot but it seems silly to limit building heights at 21 stories no matter where it is.

No one is expecting 100m + towers to be built (let alone approved, :haha: ) in Halifax anytime in the near or even distant future, but I don't agree with negating the possibility entirely.

[Takeo]

Yah... 21 stories is relatively short... hardly a "tall building". That's ridiculous.

[someone123]

Yes, it is heavy-handed and nobody really knows what kinds of buildings will be appropriate in the future. The Cogswell area is sort of the saving grace of the plan but whether or not that part of it makes sense will depend on how proactive council is with demolition. Right now none of that development land exists.

I don't think a 100 metre tower is far-fetched. Fenwick is almost 100 metres and in fact there's supposedly an office proposal floating around that could be that tall, although I'm not sure how it fits into the existing planning regulations (i.e. what height was approved in the 80s).

The 83 m limit comes from a bylaw stating that no new buildings should be visible from within the Citadel's courtyard. Really stupid rule with very far-reaching implications to protect something minor but par for the course, just like the viewplanes which have resulted in some really ugly massing of buildings in the downtown.

[phrenic]

Downtown height limits should be suggestions

By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Tue. Apr 8 - 6:52 AM

THE DREAM is that somehow Halifax will be able to create a vibrant downtown with the new HRM by Design plan released Monday.

The urban design plan tries to appease heritage groups and meet the demands of developers.

While it is an admirable dream, it’s doubtful the city and the task force it established to create a new plan will be able to create something acceptable to everyone.

HRM by Design proponents may be tempted to take credit for the rebirth of major downtown construction projects. But it is my view that the construction was going to happen with or without the new plan.

The plan is supposed to protect the interests of heritage advocates who are concerned the plan doesn’t go far enough in restricting the height of new construction projects.

They fear that the construction of larger new buildings will pressure owners of heritage buildings to tear down older structures.

HRM by Design trumpets that it will speed development in the downtown because it creates guidelines for developers and removes much of the uncertainty and lengthy appeals that plagued development.

But the HRM plan doesn’t answer all of the concerns of heritage groups and it seems to be picking and choosing winners and losers among the developers by designating height limits in some areas, while clearing the path for others.

Other versions of the HRM by Design proposal have been discussed for the several months. The final report isn’t much different and doesn’t allow for contract development.

The proposed downtown height limits range from about three storeys to 21 storeys, depending on the proximity to Citadel Hill and whether projects fall into one of nine views of Halifax Harbour from the Citadel.

The Cogswell interchange, north of the downtown, has been designated as a prime development area by HRM by Design, mainly because it is outside the view planes.

By creating strict downtown height limits, it seems to shut the door on future development that may not conform to the height limits but may still be a desirable downtown addition. The height limits should be suggestions, leaving flexibility for developers to negotiate with the city on what is in the city’s best interest.

Replacing a lengthy appeals process by putting stricter guidelines on downtown developments seems to add up to the same thing.

A developer held up by appeals could and will probably be just as hampered by the type of urban design the task force is proposing.

There is also a danger that city hall staff will have even more power than they already wield.

If you plan to build downtown, developers don’t upset the city planning department because they could put the brakes on your project.

Developers won’t be able to appeal height issues, but design issues could be appealed to council.

The economics of modern construction require projects to be a certain size and density. Otherwise the lower-density buildings will require developers to cut costs on materials and design. There are already too may low-rise underwhelming buildings downtown.

Planning for the future residential population of the downtown is a good thing, but the plan should also be realistic.

While some developers will be able to build large buildings outside of the view planes, the city could very well hold back rejuvenating the key Argyle district because of height.

( rtaylor@herald.ca)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1048340.html

[DuffMan]

I think HRM by Design did a great job, if you consider the impossible situation they were faced with. How do create a framework that can realistically move forward in a city like Halifax, where there are two strongly opposing viewpoints on developments, was an impressive feat. I know it has not been approved yet, by I am quite confident that council will approve it.

I like every aspect of the proposal - the Barrington Street Heritage district, the renovated Cornwallis Park area, the Cogswell redevelopment, the clear description of where height is allowed and to what degree. THe only point I don't like is the 21 story height limit even in the "height friendly" zones. Hopefully this can be something that is negotiated out of the final version. I think a few pockets of downtown (notably Cogswell) should be free to go even taller, as long as the design and qualitative aspects of the proposals are good.

[Smevo]

Height limits should never be an "across the board" approach, especially in a city like Halifax, and especially when the "limit" is shorter than buildings which already exist in the city. Let's face it, is a 32, 36, or even 40 storey building on the Cogswell lands going to be visible from the Citadel courtyard? I would sincerely doubt it. I haven't read the plan personally, but based on the summary replies given here, the rest of it sounds good.

[terrynorthend]

Funny that the one great place for height and development (Cogswell) under HRM by Design is the one place that isn't developable anytime in the near future.

[Takeo]

Height limits should never be an "across the board" approach, especially in a city like Halifax, and especially when the "limit" is shorter than buildings which already exist in the city. Let's face it, is a 32, 36, or even 40 storey building on the Cogswell lands going to be visible from the Citadel courtyard? I would sincerely doubt it. I haven't read the plan personally, but based on the summary replies given here, the rest of it sounds good.

Yes... a 32 story building would be clearly visible from the Citadel courtyard... but that is not a protected view of "historic" significance.

Personally... I would rather see height downtown than on Cogswell. Not on Barrington Street... and not right up beside the hill (like the Midtown proposal)... but anything below Barrington should be fair game. And there really aren't many historic buildings below Barrington. I can think of Bedford Row and the northern ends of Granville / Hollis... and the Brewery of course... but for the most part there are very few historic buildings below Barrington.

[Smevo]

^Yeah, you're right. I wanted to get an idea so I did some very rough trig calculations based on over-simplified assumptions (all I could go on really), and my result was a limit of 62.5m on Cogswell, or roughly 21 storeys at 3.05m(10ft)/storey, based on the Citadel couryard rule. If you're wondering, I used/interpreted data off a topo map provided here (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map?mapsize=428+380&scale=20000.000000&mapxy=2438241.668904484+126619.63291908888&mode=zoomin&lat=44.8666666643&long=-63.7158333309&searchstring=Halifax&location1=12&unique_key=355d8e46affd11d892e2080020a0f4c9&feature_na=Halifax&entity=GEOG&layers=fapfeature%20elevation%20contour_250k%20roads%20hydrography%20populated_places%20contour&hidetextbox=&urlappend=%26unique_key%3D355d8e46affd11d892e2080020a0f4c9%26map.layer%5Btextzoom03%5D%3DFEATURE%20POINTS%202416821.82553%20143129.572506%20END%20TEXT%20%22Halifax%22%20END%26map.layer%5Btextzoom46%5D%3DFEATURE%20POINTS%202416821.82553%20143129.572506%20END%20TEXT%20%22Halifax%22%20END%26map.layer%5Barrowzoom03%5D%3DFEATURE%20POINTS%202416821.82553%20143129.572506%20END%20END) and assumed an eye-level of roughly 3m below the top of the courtyard wall for a person standing at the opposite wall in a straight line (like I said, oversimplified). My raw data is probably also off, but I knew that initially and just wanted to get a rough idea.

Don't quote me on these figures though, like I said, it was horribly over-simplified and based on measurements off a map which is a cardinal sin!

[Jonovision]

I've been slowly reading all the documents....I'm about half way through. They are monstrous! But after reading so much, first off I want to point out that there isn't a blanket height limit. I don't know where that idea has come from, but if you open up the second document on the page and look at the maps. There is a lot of variation in height limits. The cogswell lands are somewhat ambiguous in that they have just said that they must abide by the ramparts bylaw. But the rest of downtown is all cut up into different pieces of varying height limits.

Also, after reading the draft plan, one thing i can really appreciate is that there is a true sense of place in this plan. If all these things were realized we would have a very cohesive downtown. We all talk about the citadel, and its looming presence over the downtown, and it makes it feel like it doesn't belong. One thing this plan seems to do very well is relate the rest of the downtown to the citadel. Having one unified area, as oppose to a downtown, and a historic fort. These linkages, if established would do wonders for the identity of downtown Halifax.

[reddog794]

I'm about halfway through them myself J, and it's very much changed my view of the plan. Funny how being informed stops flying off the handle half-cocked... heh... heh. To be honest it was Jono's points in other threads that made me want to read it, he/she seems to hit a lot of topics on the head, and well recipes tire my addled brain.

The plan even simplifies the appeal process, and even puts a limit on time and number of appeals someone (be it heritage, or nimbys) can make. It's doesn't knock the legs out from them, but it does check the pull, they have development wise.

As for towers DT, a broken up and spread out highrise district would probably help with the flow of the city. It would more than likely help stem the "doughnut effect" that's happened(ing) in fair amount of North American cities, and somewhat in ours. Naturally though, most of the highrise developments are going to move North toward the interchange lands because that's where the land is. I'd be down with that, that way you could have a rising affect starting at PPP, and as you go more North, the buildings get taller, and that way you get a great view coming into the harbour, where a luck foad of our visitors are going to enter, and more people get a view of the best damned park in North America, from a lot more points in the city.

Ya I said it, I love Point Pleasant Park more than the Dartmouth commons and Shubie Park combined. (blasphemy!!!)

[Takeo]

I have not read the document, but if there is a blanket height limit, I would have to strongly disagree with that. There should be no height limit in the "height-friendly" zones. Let the market decide. We're gonna stymie the entire city because of the rampart bylaw? I'm ok with the view planes, but the rampart rule goes too far in my view.

[someone123]

Well the rampart bylaw already exists, in practice restricting buildings to something in the 80-90 m range around the downtown (then other height limits are applied to that). It is not something new to HRM by Design and to be honest I don't think it's worth fighting at this point. It's a "sacred cow", along with the viewplanes.

[Takeo]

Well the rampart bylaw already exists, in practice restricting buildings to something in the 80-90 m range around the downtown (then other height limits are applied to that). It is not something new to HRM by Design and to be honest I don't think it's worth fighting at this point. It's a "sacred cow", along with the viewplanes.

Yah... I guess I had just forgotten about the rampart bylaw. The focus always seems to be more on the view planes. Still... 21 stories... wow. I mean... that's a really short, stubby building by most cities standards. I'm not saying I want Halifax to be full of massive skyscrapers... it's just the seemingly arbitrary nature of it that bother me. I'm ok with the view planes... but I think where height is allowed... the market should decide the height. But you're right... that's a battle that cannot be won.

[Smevo]

As far as Cogswell goes, though I've only read through most of Volume 1, they described the area as a future highrise district (20 or more storeys). If 20 or more storeys meant 21 and no taller, that would be absolutely ridiculous, so I have a feeling they're expecting taller than 21 on the Cogswell lands when they come up for development.

It's a crapload of material to read through.

[Keith P.]

I've read through it all and my feeling now is one of overwhelming disappointment.

I could write a treatise on all the things in it that disappoint, but my overriding thought is that it reads like a planning school exercise. It takes pains to include every feel-good item that seems to be a mandatory part of planning theory, but which in practice makes little sense.

The document basically shunts the issue of tall buildings aside by prohibiting them almost everywhere downtown. The only area that can reach the 65M limit are 2 or 3 parcels that will be created once the Cogswell interchange is demolished. They draw the restoration of the traditional street network in that area, which, as I expected, leaves precious little room for anything much to be built. But then, the whole thing seems mired in the past.

It talks at length of the need to make downtown "pedestrian-friendly". It ignores the fact that the vast majority of downtown already is, at least as much as an area built on the side of a steep hill is likely to get. The only spot that is not is the interchange. Yet they go on about the need for "sidewalk bumpouts" at corners -- something you can see on Portland St in downtown Dartmouth, where they are a hazard to traffic and look just plain stupid -- along with the need to surface crosswalks in a different material. They show in their drawings those as being brick inlays like those that were put in back in the early 80s and were ripped out a decade or so later after being torn up by snowplows and being branded as "ankle-benders" in the press. They conveniently ignore the fact that the narrow streets with buildings built out to the sidewalk leave precious little room for wide sidewalks and bike lanes.

They condemn the automobile, as apparently all planners are trained to do, and forbid virtually any parking in most of the new developments they specify. While nobody wants vast parking lots covering the downtown, their disdain for virtually any parking raises serious questions as to the viability of many of their concepts. But a great many of their proposals are questionable; they call for a 4 or 5 storey condo or apartment development to be built on the Superstore parking lot while retaining the Superstore building behind it. How the hell Loblaws would allow that is not addressed. Similarly they discuss at length the need for bicycling provisions, even to the point of mandating bicycle parking at new developments. I will continue to maintain that bicycling will never be a significant form of commuter transport in a city like this given the hills and foul weather we cope with much of the year. But there it is, straight out of the planners handbook.

Despite the cries of the likes of Phil Pacey, the document reads like it kowtows to the heritage groups. It condemns downtown to a future of low-rise brick buildings for the most part. The design manual is particularly discouraging. It specifies finishes of mostly brick, and decrys attempts to make existing old buildings look like something other than 19th century relics. The disgust in the words of the authors as they describe the building housing Freak Lunchbox must be read to be believed. While it does say that faux-Victorian structures should be discouraged, the narrow parameters they define leave everything pretty much in that genre, perhaps without the ornamentation. Lovely. While leaving many broad questions unanswered, they nevertheless found the time to go into excrutiating detail about things like paint colors and finishes in other sections. Bizarre.

They have also wrapped up Barrington St pretty much as built. Everything from Duke St to SGR is considered historic and therefore untouchable. Good luck with that. They want it to basically be a museum.

As we digest what these documents tell us, one can only be disappointed that the vision of the authors was filtered through such narrow lenses. Despite the "10 Big Moves" they talk about, there really isn't much here to get excited about, and a whole lot to be disdainful of and discouraged by. They really aren't big moves at all. They are a prettifying exercise of what we currently have to work with and not much else. If everything they describe came to reality, we would have a nicer downtown. But would it be memorable or exciting or vibrant? I seriously doubt it. Sadly, though, with the effort, expense, and hype around this exercise, it seems certain that HRM will make it law. And that, in turn, will prevent anything truly big, either in size or in concept, from happening in the downtown for a very, very long time.

[Takeo]

I've read through it all and my feeling now is one of overwhelming disappointment.

Actually... I'm very pro-development and most of what you disagree with... I agree with! My main issue is with the ridiculous 65M limit.

Barrington is historic and SHOULD be kept more or less as-is. Restored and revived... yes... but not demolished or built up.

And the street grid should absolutely be restored at Cogswell... otherwise, what is the point of taking it down? The idea is to stitch the city back together again.

And what's wrong with having provisions for biking?

And parking lots, esp. surface parking lots, are downtown killers. Surely though there must be requirements for underground parking no? How can you put up a large building and now provide parking?

I agree that the height limits are far too restrictive. I'm very disappointed with that aspect.

I agree that brick pavers are pretty but completely insane and impractical. Have we learned nothing from those horrible pavers we put in in the 80's? Unless the "technology" has improved... they should be avoided.

I agree that the idea of the building in the Superstore parking lot is also crazy. I've been aware of that idea. When I first heard it I was thinking... what?! How is that gonna work? I can imagine Loblaws wanting to hide their building and lose half their parking lot... not to mention their new gas station. Nice idea... yes... but impractical.

The rest... I agree with.

[someone123]

I was a little put off by the level of detail in the recommendations for signage etc. for Barrington as well. The drawings remind me of bland shops found in suburban "New Urbanist" developments. They're definitely trying to recover a kind of 1950s small town feel that makes little sense on Barrington, where unusual storefronts like Freak Lunchbox and Fireworks are actually highlights on what can otherwise be a pretty dull street.

From an architectural point of view I have no problem with preserving most of the buildings and I think heritage incentives should go towards projects that do a good job of maintaining expensive Victorian ornamentation, etc. I don't even mind height restrictions on Barrington but I dislike the slant towards faux historic infill.

As I've stated before I don't mind brick buildings but the phobia of modern design really makes Halifax look like an unsophisticated, backwards place. I guess it is to some extent, but mostly I think these policies exist because of a few people with apparently a lot of free time.

I agree with the planning dogma comments as well. A lot of the recommendations come off as sacred pronouncements rather than the result of real rationale. This is, of course, because many people want to shape the city based on their own personal tastes.

[Keith P.]

Actually... I'm very pro-development and most of what you disagree with... I agree with! My main issue is with the ridiculous 65M limit.

Barrington is historic and SHOULD be kept more or less as-is. Restored and revived... yes... but not demolished or built up.

I don't argue that SOME of it is historic. But they fail to address the problems that have led to it being in its current state. If the buildings on the street are not economically viable now, how can they be any more viable if they are prettied up and/or restored back to original? They even compliment the provincial governemnt for their use of the Johnston Bldg, for god's sake. That is a black hole on that part of Barrington. But it has been restored and preserved so that is a good thing in their minds, even though it hurts the street's activity level and is dead almost all the time. Where is the sense in that?

And the street grid should absolutely be restored at Cogswell... otherwise, what is the point of taking it down? The idea is to stitch the city back together again.

Never said it shouldn't. But did you notice the small blocks that result from their plan? And did you happen to notice that to make it happen the way they say, the Trade Mart is gone? How's that going to happen? Expropriation? That part of it is totally unrealistic.

And what's wrong with having provisions for biking?

They are seemingly mandating biking provisions more than vehicles. That's simply crazy. If you're living or woirking downtown, odds are there is going to be a car involved for a sizeable percentage of those folks. But this plan not only ignores that; it seems to indicate that vehicles won't be accomodated at all. That's ridiculous.

And parking lots, esp. surface parking lots, are downtown killers. Surely though there must be requirements for underground parking no? How can you put up a large building and now provide parking?

My point exactly. But read the document. How much do you see them discuss parking except where they say "no"?

I agree that the height limits are far too restrictive. I'm very disappointed with that aspect.

I agree that brick pavers are pretty but completely insane and impractical. Have we learned nothing from those horrible pavers we put in in the 80's? Unless the "technology" has improved... they should be avoided.

I agree that the idea of the building in the Superstore parking lot is also crazy. I've been aware of that idea. When I first heard it I was thinking... what?! How is that gonna work? I can imagine Loblaws wanting to hide their building and lose half their parking lot... not to mention their new gas station. Nice idea... yes... but impractical.

The rest... I agree with.

Give it some further consideration.

[Keith P.]

Not that it would ever be practical in Halifax, but imagine... this document, when adopted, will forever prevent something like this from even being thought of for here:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/748/1190924997spireparkxu1.jpg

Imagine a scaled-down version of something like this, perhaps down at the waterfront. But that's all you could do with it, because this document entrenches the short, stubby, brick-clad box as Halifax's signature.

Heck, you couldn't even build the building to the right of it in the picture here in this city.

The lack of big-picture vision in the document is simply astounding.

[Takeo]

I don't think the current state of Barrington Street has anything to do with not having new developments on Barrington Street... there are a whole host of reasons.

I agree that, of course, it's horrible that the Johnston Building has ground floor offices. That's a real shame. I read on these forums that HRM by Design mandates that ground floors must have retail. I'm surprised that the document would praise the Johnston Building. The restoration is great, but the fact that is gives nothing to the street is shameful. I used to love that little gallery.

I have not seen the proposed map of the cogswell redevelopment. And re: Trade Mart... I've noticed a number of cases in the public presentations where they are showing things that are completely unrealistic... like the building in the Superstore parking lot, the disappearing Trade Mart and the transformation of the Metro Center wall into a magical pedestrian paradise.

As for bikes (or walking) vs. cars... I can't agree there. We should discourage car use downtown as much as possible. And if you live and work downtown, you wouldn't need a car that much. I live in the Hyrdostone area and I barely use my car now. I walk most places (including downtown to work) and just use my car to get groceries mostly.

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet... and I really don't know when I will get the time (eventually... yes). I just know what I know from meetings and from the website, etc... but I'd be surprised if you could build a building downtown and not provide underground parking.

[Takeo]

Not that it would ever be practical in Halifax, but imagine... this document, when adopted, will forever prevent something like this from even being thought of for here:

Haha :) Well... I agree with your point but I'm not sure that's the best example. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

[Takeo]

p.s. I'm gonna grab a print copy of the document on Monday. Good bedtime reading maybe :)

[someone123]

The building stock on Barrington has a huge impact on its current state for a variety of reasons. The most important are that the current buildings just can't accommodate the kinds of uses that would work best. The upper floors of many of the buildings are underutilized and can't (from what I've heard) have residential units because of fire codes. Furthermore, there's a lack of major spaces available to large new retail tenants and arguably there's not enough retail space to turn the street into a real destination.

I've also heard several times that there are major retailers wanting to move to the Spring Garden area but they can't because there are no major retail spaces. Meanwhile, the Infirmary lands are sitting idle.

Regional developments such as malls also have an impact but controlling that is much more difficult. The fact is that most people have cars and will drive out to big box stores to make many purchases.

[Takeo]

So other than making changes to allow for residential units above, what would you propose? Saving the historic building but building on / around?

Also, there are a few buildings there which are not historic (and damn ugly) which could be demolished... like the building that houses the CD store next to Venus Envy. Wow is that an ugly building.

Also, is the building that houses Tim's and the Mercury exempt from the fire codes?

Anyway... as I say... I haven't had a chance to read the document from cover to cover yet.

The building stock on Barrington has a huge impact on its current state for a variety of reasons. The most important are that the current buildings just can't accommodate the kinds of uses that would work best. The upper floors of many of the buildings are underutilized and can't (from what I've heard) have residential units because of fire codes. Furthermore, there's a lack of major spaces available to large new retail tenants and arguably there's not enough retail space to turn the street into a real destination.

I've also heard several times that there are major retailers wanting to move to the Spring Garden area but they can't because there are no major retail spaces. Meanwhile, the Infirmary lands are sitting idle.

Regional developments such as malls also have an impact but controlling that is much more difficult. The fact is that most people have cars and will drive out to big box stores to make many purchases.

[Keith P.]

So other than making changes to allow for residential units above, what would you propose? Saving the historic building but building on / around?

I suppose that is one way, though in my mind those often look bastardized and hokey. The only other way I can think of is massive public subsidies which is never a very good idea.

Also, there are a few buildings there which are not historic (and damn ugly) which could be demolished... like the building that houses the CD store next to Venus Envy. Wow is that an ugly building.

True, though the invertory of buildings in HBD is fairly kind to it, surprise surprise. Not sure what they see in it.

Also, is the building that houses Tim's and the Mercury exempt from the fire codes?

I don't think so. That is the former Canada Permanent building from the late 50s/early 60s and is a landmark building in itself as the first example of that style in Halifax. Of course, the inventory document doesn't like it very much, which is a pretty telling indication of the biases of whomever compiled the thing. I think that its later construction allowed it to be compliant when it was adapted to its present use, which is apartments.

[someone123]

I would have liked to see more height for sites such as Barrington and George. There are also a couple of buildings such as the one with the Discovery Centre at the corner of Sackville that could have a small tower built above. The CD Plus building isn't worth "saving" by any stretch. Other buildings like Carsand Mosher are just really small and could also go, although in that case I think it's under the viewplanes (also the heritage people often think that small, "quaint" buildings are the most important ones). The NFP facade is kind of silly at this point, although maybe we'll see a proposal for it soon. I wish that little stretch of brick institutional buildings could just be picked up and set down on some other more appropriate location. The base of the Maritime Centre could be overhauled.

That's a good half a dozen "opportunity sites" on what is really only a four block stretch. In most cases I think the new construction should be modern architecture with glass cladding. It would in fact detract much less from neighbouring heritage buildings than additions that mimic nearby buildings but just don't have the same level of quality and detailing.

[Keith P.]

Barrington and George is limited to, I believe, 9 floors, which does seem a bit ridiculous when you have the TD Center across the street at 20 or so floors. That site is designated for a provincial govt office building and you just know how ugly and poorly designed that is going to be. So you can pretty much write that corner off.

The Carsand Mosher building is interesting, as it is very nicely designed. It's just too short. Whether anything could be built above it in a compatible style I do not know, but it would seem doubtful. Your point about the Discovery Center building is a good one. That just looks like it could take a tower on top of it, and given the substantial way those old buildings were constructed, it may be so. I don't know what remains inside, but that was a very interesting interior originally, with a design that seemed perfect for a very impressive office building. The main floor was partially open to above, with a large staircase to the right with heavy brass and stainless hardware, with a 2nd-level balcony or gallery of sorts. In my minds eye that would make a fabulous lobby/indoor shopping area.

Between there and Carsand, there really isn't much (despite the glowing words of the author of the inventory in HBD). Would Barrington be much worse off if it lost the building housing the Med or Star Anise or whatever? I doubt it. Same with the Paramount Theater entry, or, for that matter, Sievert's, though it is a truly old building, but really not very impressive.

We discussed previously the block acrioss the street. I think that is one of the most troublesome parts of the whole street. I have never liked the Khyber building, and the NFB facade was in retrospect a waste of money in saving. The old City Club building at least has the advantage of an attractive facade, but it doesn't offer much on the way of attractive options for its use. If all 3 went away it would do wonders for the street.

[someone123]

I really like the architecture of the Khyber and City Club. The NFB building also looked impressive at one point, but the fact is that the empty shell has sat there for 15+ years. It is absolutely terrible looking. The other problem is that these buildings are just not suited to the street. If only Halifax had grown a bit more a bit earlier, they would have been torn down and replaced by some major commercial building.

These factors involved on Barrington partly explain why I have a problem with the height limits. The street needs creative solutions but I just don't think those are going to come from the private sector when all costs have to be offset by selling/leasing 3-5 floors of condos or office space. I don't think they will come from the public sector either because both the municipality and province have been totally clueless when it comes to Barrington and have harmed it more than they have helped.

Personally I think the focus should be on keeping the top buildings in the best possible condition. These are buildings like the one with Peepshow, the former Eaton's, Green Lantern Building, Tramway Building, Wright Building, the Masonic Hall and the white building next door. It is definitely not necessary to keep plain 2-3 storey brick or cinderblock boxes around to maintain the "feel" of the street with these other much more impressive buildings. If anything, some of the buildings like CD Plus detract from the overall feel.

[Takeo]

Personally I think the focus should be on keeping the top buildings in the best possible condition. These are buildings like the one with Peepshow, the former Eaton's, Green Lantern Building, Tramway Building, Wright Building, the Masonic Hall and the white building next door.

Eaton's? Do you mean Zellers... aka the Misty Moon... aka the Discovery Center? Where was the old Eaton's?

p.s. I remember being in the old Zellers once as a kid and being very impressed. It was a very cool interior space with the large open to below area.

[Keith P.]

Eaton's? Do you mean Zellers... aka the Misty Moon... aka the Discovery Center? Where was the old Eaton's?

In what is now known as the Johnston Bldg. I have a very dim memory of being in there as a small child. I recall the large elevators that had operators.

p.s. I remember being in the old Zellers once as a kid and being very impressed. It was a very cool interior space with the large open to below area.

Yes, that's what I was mentioning earlier. What a cool lobby that would make.

[Takeo]

In what is now known as the Johnston Bldg.

Cool. I had no idea that was an Eatons.

[Keith P.]

Cool. I had no idea that was an Eatons.

I think they are all gone now, but until the renovation by the govt a few years ago there were some original brass escutcheons on the lower doors that still retained the "T. Eaton & Co." lettering.

[Wishblade]

Heres an interesting read in the most recent issue of Halifax magazine. Im glad word like this is finally making it out to the public. It's a breath of fresh air:

http://www.halifaxmag.com/features_detail.asp?id=137

[Keith P.]

Heres an interesting read in the most recent issue of Halifax magazine. Im glad word like this is finally making it out to the public. It's a breath of fresh air:

http://www.halifaxmag.com/features_detail.asp?id=137

The quote by Phil Pacey shows just how scrambled the thinking of the Heritage Trust is. In one breath he says they are all about protecting heritage buildings and aren't anti-development; but in the very next comment he starts going on about the need to protect the views from Citadel Hill and bringing up Maritime Center. Good lord.

I'd also feel a lot more optimistic if Dawn Sloane wasn't at the center of it, saying absurdities like this:

If the city creates an atmosphere that encourages beautiful buildings, the rest will follow, she believes. “We need to figure out, and figure out now, what we can all live with,” Sloane says. “What if we just say, from Duke Street to Spring Garden Road, buildings should be seven storeys and that’s it? That protects the view planes—from the heritage side, seven storeys isn’t a problem— and then the developers know the rules they have to work with.” That’s one of several compromises officials are discussing. But ultimately, it will take pressure on government, from people just like you, to keep advancing these issues.


That is pretty much what HBD has come up with. Sad.

[Wishblade]

Yeah, I cant say I was too happy with those parts of the article. And I think Dawn Sloane got way too much coverage in it.

[someone123]

I really dislike how Pacey talks as if the whole city can subsist off of Argyle Streets and Keiths breweries. It can't. That kind of thing is about 2% of the economy, which is exactly what explains why there is so little development downtown relative to the suburbs. Furthermore, there are relatively few other heritage buildings suitable for similar redevelopments and re-filling buildings constructed in 1820 can hardly be considered "growth".

Basically the comments of Pacey et al. need to be taken for what they are - personal opinions based on little overall understanding of urban dynamics, architecture, and economic realities. The future of the downtown should not be decided by people who can only see 20% of the overall picture.

Sloane's point about clarity being needed in the development process is accurate but the idea that practically any height is reasonable so long as there are no appeals is likely totally wrong. During this process has anybody actually tried to figure out the requirements of businesses locating in the downtown core instead of just giving them whatever the heritage people are happy with (because it makes new buildings look like old ones) or whatever the planners are happy with (because the renderings look pretty)?

[Bedford_DJ]

Halifax needs tall buildings or risks 'hollowing out': Lund

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Thu. Apr 24 - 5:54 PM

The chief executive of Nova Scotia's major economic development agency says it's vital that Halifax city council allow exceptions to proposed rules restricting downtown building heights.

Council is expected to hear a proposal that would fix height restrictions in the downtown area in order to allow people to still see the harbour from various locations.
However, Stephen Lund mdash; the head of Nova Scotia Business Inc. — says he needs more office space in order to attract businesses to the province.

He told the Halifax Chamber of Commerce today that without ``flexibility'' in height restrictions it's possible that businesses he's trying to attract to the city will choose another location.

Lund says companies want to be downtown, and the city hasn't had a major new tall building in 18 years.

Heritage groups argue that the proposed rules are already flexible enough to allow development, and that there is already a considerable amount of vacant space in existing buildings.

Source: The Chronicle Herald

[Wishblade]

Ok, someone posted this on Novascotialive, and I just had to post it here.

I present to you, the heritage trusts top 10 reasons (rediculous reasons) why HRM by design puts Halifax at risk:

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/heritage.trust/pdf/HT_Flyerv3.pdf

[hfx_chris]

I said it there, and I'll say it again here: that's a piece of trash. Comparing the historical buildings of Jerusalem, Vienna or Paris and their methods of preserving heritage to Halifax is absurd. It's quite obvious the Heritage Trust's methods aren't working, otherwise Halifax wouldn't be in the state it is in today. Time to get rid of them, or severely limit their say.

[Bedford_DJ]

I love how they say low-rises are cheap to live in. Though it might be true sometimes, some places like Park Vic are cheaper to live in then lets say a house in Schmidtville (Park Vic's backyard).

[Jonovision]

$50 million in spin offs from citadel hill?!?!!? Come on now! And that whole nonsense about Sustainability and Environment, utter bullshit. Old buildings guzzle energy, and unless retrofitted properly will continue to do so....even if they remain intact! And then they go on about public consultation? where do these people get off. The old strategy is so distorted and so ambiguous.....this is why we have all these development fights at council. If they were paying attention they'd notice that over 500 people showed up to one HRM by Design meetings. I don't think they had that kind of turnout when the current plan was written. These people make me angry, all those "great historic cities" are finally allowing the bubble to become flexible. They are erecting some of the most amazing buildings we have ever seen, and they are the better for it. Flying in the face of current practices my ass!!!!

Sorry for the rant guys :P

[someone123]

Almost all of what they say is wrong, but two things in particular bother me:

1) Height limits are a terrible way to protect heritage buildings. They do nothing to prevent demolition and neglect, and in fact they encourage it by making it harder to fill in nearby empty lots.

2) Downtown Halifax has historic buildings but there are no complete historic districts. Barrington certainly is not one and has not been one since the 1960s. Preserving the downtown in its current state will not recreate the 1950s, it will simply perpetuate problems from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, which is when the downtown was remade into its current form. The urban fabric downtown needs a lot of work and it's just not going to happen if the requirement is that all new buildings go through 5 years of scrutiny by the heritage crew and come out of it as 6 storey boxes.

[sdm]

Too bad the current HRM design being proposed is now 70 foot height limits for 95% of downtown. The only sites from what i can see where heights of higher then 70 are allowed are owned by Provincial and the city governments.

If it goes through it appears we will never see a true highrise in Halifax. These strict heights will make development with rising costs almost impossible.

[Spitfire75]

Couldn't disagree more with everything they said.

If it goes through it appears we will never see a true highrise in Halifax.

At least on the peninsula where the height restrictions are.

But then again, a true high rise would look funny if it wasn't around other tall buildings, and the only place there's any decently tall buildings is the peninsula.

[sdm]

Couldn't disagree more with everything they said.



At least on the peninsula where the height restrictions are.

But then again, a true high rise would look funny if it wasn't around other tall buildings, and the only place there's any decently tall buildings is the peninsula.

Problem is without height it will be hard to develop buildings downtown without creating very high and unmarketable rents. We need height, not talking 20 stories or more, but certainly more then 7

[Wishblade]

Problem is without height it will be hard to develop buildings downtown without creating very high and unmarketable rents. We need height, not talking 20 stories or more, but certainly more then 7

actually we probably should be talking 20 or more. A 20 story building is just simply not very tall, and it just makes economic sense to build taller than that.

[spaustin]

Goodness knows I'm not a fan of heritage trust's extremer views, but I'm also not a fan of unlimited height. There are many cities (Washington and some European cities) that have achieved density without going high. Done right, the 8-10 storey range can be quite effective. Part of the problem in Halifax is that there is so much speculation which is heightened by the haphazard process we have. Its crazy that developers like Crombie or United Gulf who have development agreements for tall buildings have a winfall just from going through the mess to successfully secure an approval! That to me is a clear sign of a broken system. If we're going to limit height, rules have to be clear and the process streamlined. Asking developers to sit through 5 years to build a small building is crazy. As it stands, HRM by Design sets some fairly reasonable height limits that take account of both sides.

My main problem with HRM by Design is how it went for the faux heritage/freeze Barrington in time version of things. We should encourage an eclectic mix, not impose limits that force modern buildings to pretend to be quaint 19th century structures. Take the Canada Permanent Insurance Building (former office turned residential with timmy's on the ground floor next to the Tramway Building). It's one of the first modern high-rises in the city and a great example of the international style. What does it get in HRM by Design? Criticized for clashing with its neighbours and no recognition as part of Barrington. Why HRM by Design went for this version? Well I suspect it was to try and appeal to Heritage Trust; Give them Barrington but make them give up things elsewhere. From their reaction though they might as well not have bothered. Those folks seem to be true bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) who are completely unwilling to compromise.

[Keith P.]

My main problem with HRM by Design is how it went for the faux heritage/freeze Barrington in time version of things. We should encourage an eclectic mix, not impose limits that force modern buildings to pretend to be quaint 19th century structures. Take the Canada Permanent Insurance Building (former office turned residential with timmy's on the ground floor next to the Tramway Building). It's one of the first modern high-rises in the city and a great example of the international style. What does it get in HRM by Design? Criticized for clashing with its neighbours and no recognition as part of Barrington. Why HRM by Design went for this version? Well I suspect it was to try and appeal to Heritage Trust; Give them Barrington but make them give up things elsewhere. From their reaction though they might as well not have bothered. Those folks seem to be true bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) who are completely unwilling to compromise.

I couldn't agree more. Your example of the Canada Permanent Building is also the one that jumped out at me when I read HbD. I always liked the look of that building and did not know that it was the first example of that style here, yet they look down their nose at it and basically say it should go away. That inventory of building on Barrington was clearly written by a heritage snob and does not represent a balanced view of things. Yet I do not agree with you that HbD tries to make up for giving Barrington to the Heritage types by "making up for it elsewhere", as some of the design principles they espouse for other areas are equally bad and cater more to the faux-heritage types than an eclectic mix of all design types.

[someone123]

I wouldn't mind going for the 8-10 floor height limits, except for one thing: Halifax already has highrise buildings. The Maritime Centre, Scotia Square, bank buildings, Fenwick, etc. are not going anywhere. Keeping everything else lowrise actually *amplifies* their prominence in the city and gives the impression that nothing has changed since the 1970s. Few people seem to be thinking about these unavoidable side effects.

There are other issues as well. For example, downtown Halifax has very small blocks. Most of the 8-10 storey downtown buildings in Washington DC have very large floorplates. They also have high ceilings in many cases and I would imagine that they'd generally be too tall for our height limits, particularly farther up towards the Citadel.

One possible solution to this problem would be to find some other core areas to build large buildings in. Unfortunately, there's very little tolerance for infill in the neighbourhoods. There are actually several cases of "down-zoning" by councillors at the behest of residents before land is even up for new development (so there is no developer and the public "debate" is totally one-sided). This happened on the land behind that government building around Barrington/Morris, for example - they want nothing but townhouses on that lot.

[Bedford_DJ]

One possible solution to this problem would be to find some other core areas to build large buildings in. Unfortunately, there's very little tolerance for infill in the neighbourhoods. There are actually several cases of "down-zoning" by councillors at the behest of residents before land is even up for new development (so there is no developer and the public "debate" is totally one-sided). This happened on the land behind that government building around Barrington/Morris, for example - they want nothing but townhouses on that lot.

"Down-zoning" is a major problem here. I can only think of one building that has made it through in the soth-end (5800 South) and thats because its shorter then its neighbour. In the South-end (for example) i think low rise should be permitted generally, mid to hi-rise at appropriate locations (South Park St, Barrington Street, South St, Robie St, ect) and certain areas should only be townhouses/single-family houses (Young Ave, south of the rail-cut, Southwood Dr, McLean St, ect)

[Spitfire75]

HRM awaits planning change (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1062376.html)

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Mon. Jun 16 - 4:31 AM

The province "sideswiped" Halifax by failing to pass key legislation relating to HRM by Design during the spring session, a regional councillor says.

Four amendments central to HRM by Design, an effort to streamline development projects in downtown Halifax, were meant to be passed during the spring sitting of the legislature but the House closed last week without the amendments going through.

"This has been a two-year process and the largest public process in HRM’s history," Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said Thursday in an interview after the annual general meeting of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission.

"We were quite sideswiped by the province."

Premier Rodney MacDonald has said repeatedly that downtown Halifax needs help, she pointed out, and yet the province failed to pass the legislation.

The executive director of the business commission said he, too, laments the shelving of the four amendments.

In an address to about 60 people at the Carleton bar, Paul MacKinnon said the commission was pushing for solutions to the problems downtown developers experience.

"For too many years, downtown Halifax has been caught in a morass of development red tape," he said. "New developments were stalled or appealed, and heritage buildings were rotting from lack of investment.
"This situation is untenable."

HRM by Design will bring clarity for developers wanting to build in the downtown and introduce better design guidelines, Mr. MacKinnon said.

The amendments were to include giving the city control over things like building design, creating a design review committee to look at applications instead of regional council doing it, making council — not the Utility and Review Board —an appeal body for development proposals, and deleting the review board from the downtown Halifax planning process.

As well, there were provisions to increase the length of time it takes to get a demolition permit to two years from one.

Mr. MacKinnon urged commission members to put pressure on all three political parties over the summer "to really take seriously their responsibility for allowing Halifax to move forward," he said.

"I just don’t think they understood the magnitude of what they didn’t do in the spring session, and we’re going to make sure they do in the fall session."

The HRM by Design project manager said he’s not worried about the delay.
"The deferral in no way undermines the intent, or the content, of the plan," Andy Fillmore said Thursday.

The communications director for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations said Thursday it’s likely the amendments will proceed as planned in the fall.
(apugsley@herald.ca)

[Bedford_DJ]

Normally I wouldn't post a opinion article from the Herald here but it is by the chair of the Urban Design Task Force:
Downtown plan balances rich past, vibrant future

By DALE GODSOE
Thu. Aug 28 - 7:01 AM

HRM BY DESIGN has engaged the public in a democratic, community-led process to determine the vision for our downtown and to establish new policy that will make the vision a reality.

Over the past two years, the citizen-led Urban Design Task Force has consulted, engaged and communicated with thousands of members of the public to ensure that the resulting plan creates a vibrant, exciting and beautiful downtown for residents and visitors. It is a plan that balances our rich past with a vibrant and beautiful future.

Without this plan, we will continue to see parking lots on our waterfront, vacant and underused properties throughout the downtown, crumbling heritage resources in need of support through legislation and incentives for restoration, and an ongoing out-migration of young, highly skilled workers looking for a dynamic and progressive place to live and work.

A recent opinion piece contained a number of inaccuracies that we would like to address to ensure readers have the correct information about the enhanced heritage protection that is a large part of HRM by Design. This plan will neither encourage nor allow 30 high-rises in the central business district, nor will it encourage the demolition of heritage resources. On the contrary, HRM by Design will provide strengthened heritage protections, and directs any future tall buildings to those areas where tall buildings already exist, thereby preserving the heritage heart of the downtown. Finally, HRM by Design is creating new planning policy and has no ability to influence applications being processed under current policy.

The establishment of the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District (HCD), HRM’s first ever HCD, will occur with the adoption of the downtown plan. It will help protect and conserve this continuous, well-defined heritage area through improved demolition and rehabilitation guidelines, and a tax incentive and grants program designed to stimulate the revitalization of this historic streetscape.

Improved demolition control is also being sought through provincial legislative amendments to help protect the stand-alone heritage buildings not located in the Barrington Street HCD, and through the identification of two other future heritage conservation districts – Historic Properties and Barrington Street south. Heritage design guidelines in the new Design Manual will guide appropriate development and design of buildings integrated with, and next to existing heritage buildings both inside and outside of HCDs.

Another protection for heritage exists within the proposed development-approvals process and proposed downtown land-use bylaw. Under the existing development-agreement process, new projects can be negotiated to heights up to the ceiling of the Citadel and ramparts view planes. We have seen this occur countless times over the years, as evidenced by the many tall buildings in our central business district.

In many cases, HRM by Design is actually reducing heights below those attainable under current policy, to a pre-established maximum that has been agreed upon by the public throughout this process. These heights have been widely consulted and are informed by the local neighbourhoods, adjacency to heritage conservation districts or other tall buildings, view planes, access to public open spaces such as the waterfront boardwalk, and many other factors.

Further, the new bonus zoning agreement process will provide protection for heritage through onsite restoration or improvements as a public benefit to be provided by the developer.

Draft 2 of the Downtown Halifax Urban Design Plan will be released for public review on Sept. 15. Interested residents will have six weeks to review the plan documents, with all final comments to be directed to HRM by Oct. 24. Plan documents will be available as of Sept. 15 at www.hrmbydesign.ca and CD and hard copies can be obtained at 40 Alderney Dr., second floor, Alderney Gate in Dartmouth.

I strongly encourage people to participate in this public review period to ensure that we take the best possible plan for our downtown to council in early 2009 and achieve our goal of improving the vibrancy, beauty and sustainability of our regional showroom – downtown Halifax.

Dale Godsoe is chair, Urban Design Task Force.

[Wishblade]

"A recent opinion piece contained a number of inaccuracies that we would like to address to ensure readers have the correct information about the enhanced heritage protection that is a large part of HRM by Design. This plan will neither encourage nor allow 30 high-rises in the central business district, nor will it encourage the demolition of heritage resources. On the contrary, HRM by Design will provide strengthened heritage protections, and directs any future tall buildings to those areas where tall buildings already exist, thereby preserving the heritage heart of the downtown."


Ok, now let me get this straight. Only putting highrises where highrises already exist. That would include virtually the entire downtown would it not??

[sdm]

"A recent opinion piece contained a number of inaccuracies that we would like to address to ensure readers have the correct information about the enhanced heritage protection that is a large part of HRM by Design. This plan will neither encourage nor allow 30 high-rises in the central business district, nor will it encourage the demolition of heritage resources. On the contrary, HRM by Design will provide strengthened heritage protections, and directs any future tall buildings to those areas where tall buildings already exist, thereby preserving the heritage heart of the downtown."


Ok, now let me get this straight. Only putting highrises where highrises already exist. That would include virtually the entire downtown would it not??

You could say that, but what they really mean is Cogswell i believe.

[hfx_chris]

But there's no highrises on the cogswell site!

:D

[HaliStreaks]

But there's no highrises on the cogswell site!

:D

And I think its already said *somewhere* that's what going to happen on that site anyway... yes... no?

[sdm]

And I think its already said *somewhere* that's what going to happen on that site anyway... yes... no?

As per future growth yes.

[hfx_chris]

And I think its already said *somewhere* that's what going to happen on that site anyway... yes... no?

Yes, but future doesn't mean present.

[sdm]

Yes, but future doesn't mean present.

And that is if they tear that structure down.

Reading the details of HRM by design, most of downtown is 6 stories or less.

[Wishblade]

And that is if they tear that structure down.

Reading the details of HRM by design, most of downtown is 6 stories or less.

So, if downtown is 6 stories or less with HRM by design, where will all the towers go? to remain an economic engine, we must have a district for financial services and other offices. It would be stupid not to build them downtown, but if not there, they have to go somewhere...

[hfx_chris]

Downtown Dartmouth

[Bedford_DJ]

Does anyone know the proposed height limit on SGR? I know i was reading somewhere at street level they have to be three stories but they can be taller as long as they are stepped back...

[sdm]

Does anyone know the proposed height limit on SGR? I know i was reading somewhere at street level they have to be three stories but they can be taller as long as they are stepped back...

3 at street level but again limited height. I believe the max is 10, but is limited do to view planes.

For example the CBC building can't be built high just in case they need to fire a cannon.

From SGR south there maybe one site that can go over 7 stories, if i can remember correctly.

[sdm]

So, if downtown is 6 stories or less with HRM by design, where will all the towers go? to remain an economic engine, we must have a district for financial services and other offices. It would be stupid not to build them downtown, but if not there, they have to go somewhere...

Not sure what to say, but thats what the details show.

[Bedford_DJ]

3 at street level but again limited height. I believe the max is 10, but is limited do to view planes.

For example the CBC building can't be built high just in case they need to fire a cannon.

From SGR south there maybe one site that can go over 7 stories, if i can remember correctly.

10!?!? That's shorter than most of the buildings on South Park St!

I've dug through the files and on SGR there are three different height areas;

CBC Building southside - South Park - Morris - Dresdon (minus one block) is 215 feet (65m).

Dresdon to just after Brunswick is 90 feet (27m),

And near Barrington is 35 feet (10m).

The section near South Park has a proposed height about the same as the Trillium's roofline will be. :D

The CBC building is probably short because of the rampart's bylaw...

It turns out the streetwall height on the main part of SGR is 55 feet (16 metres) so more than 3 stories i guess. Along South Park it is 80 feet (25 feet).

[sdm]

10!?!? That's shorter than most of the buildings on South Park St!

I've dug through the files and on SGR there are three different height areas;

CBC Building southside - South Park - Morris - Dresdon (minus one block) is 215 feet (65m).

Dresdon to just after Brunswick is 90 feet (27m),

And near Barrington is 35 feet (10m).

The section near South Park has a proposed height about the same as the Trillium's roofline will be. :D

The CBC building is probably short because of the rampart's bylaw...

It turns out the streetwall height on the main part of SGR is 55 feet (16 metres) so more than 3 stories i guess. Along South Park it is 80 feet (25 feet).

According to the maps the site where trillum is 215'. There really isn't much more to develop there at isn't already there.

CBC site, 75'

Parking lots, 90' which in residential would be 10 stories approximatley. Commercial would be 7 or maybe 8.

From there to downtown its 35- 70'

A few sites of height are owned by the Government downtown.

Herald site is 90' for some, 75' for most.

Best part is they call highrises 110 feet..........

Also pay attention to the ZM-3 Pre-bonus height maps.

[Bedford_DJ]

According to the maps the site where trillum is 215'. There really isn't much more to develop there at isn't already there.

It does include the block in behind the Trillium (where the NSLC is i think). So other than that white building they can develop that some more. But other than that and the corner of South Park and SGR there isn't any land left in that section.

I wonder why they didn't include the three blocks of Schmidtville and list them as potential heritage district?

Parking lots, 90' which in residential would be 10 stories approximatley. Commercial would be 7 or maybe 8.


90' also applies to the Queen St lands, and on the north side of SGR from behind HMV (Dresdon) to the current library.

Anybody else find it strange that they have a viewplane that goes to PPP but it also goes right through Fenwick Tower (approximately)?

[Wishblade]

It does include the block in behind the Trillium (where the NSLC is i think). So other than that white building they can develop that some more. But other than that and the corner of South Park and SGR there isn't any land left in that section.

I wonder why they didn't include the three blocks of Schmidtville and list them as potential heritage district?



90' also applies to the Queen St lands, and on the north side of SGR from behind HMV (Dresdon) to the current library.

Anybody else find it strange that they have a viewplane that goes to PPP but it also goes right through Fenwick Tower (approximately)?

Wasn't Fenwick Tower built before the viewplanes were implemented? I believe construction started in 1969 and was completed in 1971.

[Bedford_DJ]

That might explain the odd viewplane. So we have a viewplane that was purposely looking at Fenwick Tower....strange....

IMO HRM by Design will probably just push development to the other side of South Park (probably see a lot more going up between the Public Gardens and Robie).

[sdm]

That might explain the odd viewplane. So we have a viewplane that was purposely looking at Fenwick Tower....strange....

IMO HRM by Design will probably just push development to the other side of South Park (probably see a lot more going up between the Public Gardens and Robie).

Unless zoned R3 that might be hard. I believe the current height limits there are 70'. I doubt that will change.

The view plans came after Fenwick.

The NSLC on cylde is accorss the street. The parking lots, city owned, are 90' restricted.

From HMV to the new libary is not all that high either, there are view plans which will reduce the height.

SGR density is great, i am more concerned about the deep downtown.

[Wishblade]

Downtown Halifax development plan tweaked, much the same

Officials have tweaked the plan that would govern development in downtown Halifax, but the phone-book-sized proposal isn’t a lot different from the draft released in the spring.

“The plan is pretty well cooked right now. It’s just adding some seasonings,” Andy Fillmore, the urban design project manager, said Monday.

The HRMbyDesign committee released the second draft of the plan Monday, launching a six-week period for public comment.

Most of the substantive proposals are still there, and most of the changes were technical, Mr. Fillmore said.

Building heights would range from 10.5 to 64.5 metres, depending on in which of 36 zones they were built. Mr. Fillmore said minor changes in the second draft include rules for the form of high-rise buildings, making them more slender to improve sky and harbour views without reducing floor space.

Another small change was allowing buildings in the Barrington Street conservation area to be about three metres higher, to match the height allowed beside the area.

The second draft notes that the municipality doesn’t have the power to require the private sector to meet the LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) environmental standard for buildings, so mandatory sustainability guidelines are now just recommended guidelines.

There are new requirements for flat-top roofs to be landscaped, and for parking garages to include sheltered bicycle parking.

In writing the second draft, Mr. Fillmore said planners continued trying to balance the often competing interests of growth and heritage advocates.

The city is still waiting on the provincial government to make legislative changes that would allow for some of the provisions in the design plan. Municipal Relations Minister Jamie Muir introduced the changes late in the spring session, but too late for them to get through.

Mr. Fillmore said he’s hopeful the legislation will change this fall.

The new design plan is intended to make things clearer for developers, introduce better design guidelines, and enable quicker decisions on development proposals.

The legislation changes would give the city control over things like building design, enable a design review committee to look at applications instead of regional council doing it, make council - not the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board - an appeal body for development proposals, and delete the review board from the downtown Halifax planning process.

The deadline for public comment is Oct. 24. There’s one public meeting on the new draft – Sept. 24 at the Cunard Centre on Marginal Road. More information is available at hrmbydesign.ca.

Mr. Fillmore said he expects council will get the final report of the draft in January, and will hold a public hearing on it in February.

[Spitfire75]

The 2nd draft is available here. (http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/RegionalCentreUrbanDesignStudy.html)
I haven't checked it out yet.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I have to laugh at alot of the documents. That Cornwallis Park rendering makes no sense, Superstore just put a gas station on the land that the renderings show a big apartment complex on... The land isn't even possible to develop before remediation of the site and it currently is the parking lot for Superstore.

[sdm]

news out in allnovascotia.com on HRM by design revised plans

Looks like an additional 10 foot allowance on Barrington street district.

Flat roofs have to be green, and there is no mandatory provisions for LEED buildings (shame) but highly recommended.

Redevelopments that keep heritage facades, citing Founders Square, would be "clearly permitted"

Parking lots on cylde street area would be reduced because of schmidtville (streetlevel).

Herald lands would be restricted to 6-7 stories, but would be allowed to be increased if a convention centre is built.

Pretty much the only differences cited so far.

[Bedford_DJ]

Just to add to SDM's comment;

The ten additional feet on Barrington is to match the surronding area,

Clyde Street redevlopments have to provide 430 parking spaces,

I've had a browse through the new information and nothing about heights (except Barrington), or anything really mentioned on this thread was changed, as far as I've seen. I've had a look at the property boundaries and it looks like they could fit four taller buildings on SGR (Two around the white "box" building, and they could squeeze two onto Trillium's block).

It appears the they also hate Freak Lunch Box on Barrington. They bash in the color choice compared to the upper floors.

[Jonovision]

Yes, but its a rendering. It's a plan that is suppose to be in place for the next 25 years. A lot can change in that time, so there's no saying what might happen on that corner.

[Bedford_DJ]

Big step for HRM by Design
Bills to enable strategy go to law amendments this week
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Mon. Nov 10 - 12:35 PM
The battle over downtown Halifax development has never been so heated.

With debates boiling over from council chambers onto newspaper opinion pages and online forums, the topic has been front and centre for months.

But city hall is primed to take the guesswork out of upcoming developments — and perhaps, the wind out of those debates.

Bills to enable HRM By Design will go before the legislature’s law amendments this week. Then, city hall will host its own public hearings — likely early in the new year — before considering the adoption of the urban design strategy.

For the past 30 years, Halifax has had one of the most consultative development processes "in the land," project manager Andy Fillmore told the editorial board of The Chronicle Herald recently. And HRM By Design isn’t about to take that away.

"The project will not be a success if it does not reflect the vision that residents have for their city," he said.

But the idea is to have a clear and predictable land-use bylaw and accompanying guidelines that set the rules on the height and design of future downtown Halifax developments, he says.

One of the keys will be moving public consultation to the beginning of the process, he said.

"So, when the building is a still a sketch on the back of a napkin . . . the applicant has a chance to do some grassroots consensus-building," he said. "Who wants to fight every step of the way with a building?"

The new plan will also mean a shorter approval process that includes a design review committee, stronger heritage protection and likely, fewer time-consuming and costly appeals to the Utility and Review Board.

Appeals of decisions by the design review committee will now go to council, and that will be easier, he said.

"You won’t have to have a lawyer. You just go and stand at the microphone (in council chambers), and that’s your appeal."

HRM By Design will remove the ambiguity in the planning strategy that’s been around since the 1970s, said the executive director of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission.

"Then we’ll know in advance what things can be developed and what things can’t in the downtown core," Paul MacKinnon said in a recent interview.

And NDP Leader Darrell Dexter has said that HRM By Design seems to strike a balance.

"It’s an approach to municipal planning that seems . . . to address both sides — the development side and the preservation side."

But Phil Pacey, president of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, is worried the new plan will curtail his group’s efforts to protect heritage properties.

"It does represent a big transfer of power from the public to the development industry," Mr. Pacey recently told The Chronicle Herald.

That’s not true, said Mr. Fillmore.

A new evaluation and plan monitoring program will ensure that new developments are on track and in line with the city’s citizen-led strategy. There also will be a scorecard to make sure that HRM By Design is working.

"So the democratic process is alive and well," Mr. Fillmore said.

What is definitely alive and well is the fear that something needs to be done before Halifax becomes a city of vacant lots, said Dale Godsoe, who chairs the city’s urban design task force.

"If we don’t do something, nobody will build . . . and then we’re going to have a decayed, empty downtown," she said.

And no one wants that, she said.

Four recent public opinion polls on HRM By Design indicate about 80 per cent of residents are aware of the project and its aims and would like to see it passed. As well, the public participation rate in the actual process has been unprecedented, Mrs. Godsoe said.

Since July 2006, the city has reached out to thousands of people through public forums, open houses, private meetings and interviews.

One of their biggest meetings drew more than 500 people to Pier 21.

"We have spent two years listening to what people have to say," Mrs. Godsoe said. "I think this is more democratic than any process I’ve seen."

[Bedford_DJ]

Just how tall should downtown buildings be?
LINDSAY JONES, METRO HALIFAX
November 26, 2008 05:00




Just how tall should new buildings in the downtown be?


That’s the next step regional council has to deal with in order to formalize HRMbyDesign.


MLAs passed the city’s framework for redeveloping the downtown over the next 25 years into legislation Monday.


The new rules will streamline the process for downtown development, and involve the public earlier at the design stage.


A design review committee will decide whether bids for new buildings get the go-ahead, and council will become an appeal body.


Appeals to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review board will still be possible, but only after appeals to council.


Now, with legislation in place the next step is a public hearing on setting height restrictions, Mayor Peter Kelly says.


No date has been set yet, but Kelly said the hearing will happen early in the new year. He said council will have to take into account current laws that protect the viewplanes from Citadel Hill.


“The development community, of course, will be heard, but so will the heritage groups and every other public member who wishes to speak,” Kelly said.


“We have to be open, transparent, allow the public to make known their points of view and then make a final decision.”


Heritage versus development issues, particularly around building height, have been a “hot tamale” at council in the past and Downtown Coun. Dawn Sloane said she expects that will continue at the upcoming hearing.


“We’ve been trying to find some kind of middle ground in which people are somewhat happy,” she said.


“They won’t all be happy on either side — both spectrums are going to have their grievances and that’s allowed — but that’s where we as council have to bring it to a happy ending.”

• A recent Bristol Group survey commissioned by Metro Halifax showed half of those surveyed said most sightlines from Citadel Hill should be preserved. Three in 10 said they want to keep just a few sightlines and build highrises. Twelve per cent don’t want sightlines changed at all, and nine per cent said new buildings are more important than sightlines.

[someone123]

I find the polls pretty pointless since they don't ask the right questions, the development rules aren't clear to most people, and most don't appreciate the alternatives.

Most people will tell you on the one hand they want a busy downtown etc. and then on the other tell you that they also want things that make that difficult or impossible.

[worldlyhaligonian]

We definitely need to be involved with this meeting, enough of us could really tip the scale in favour of height... I believe in preserving some of the sight lines, but no max height for certain locations.

[sdm]

We definitely need to be involved with this meeting, enough of us could really tip the scale in favour of height... I believe in preserving some of the sight lines, but no max height for certain locations.

Am game, lets do it

[dartmouthian]

They should have low height limits on heritage buildings and get rid of most of the rest. That way, there would be much less incentive to demolish heritage buildings while not hurting new developments. also the viewplane covering the oil refiney has got to go. maybe leave a few but most of them are not worth keeping.

[Haliguy]

Am game, lets do it

me too

[Bedford_DJ]

I don't usually post opinions from the newspaper but this is an exception because its by Peter Kelly:

HRMbyDesign: striking a balance in the downtown

By PETER KELLY
Sat. Nov 29 - 5:36 AM


Mayor Peter Kelly (Contributed)




It’s been a long time coming. Some might argue too long. But this week, the provincial government cleared the way for Halifax regional council to adopt HRMbyDesign – a much discussed and debated plan that will allow our municipality to find the right balance between new growth and development and protection of our cherished heritage buildings.

Put simply, HRMbyDesign will make the development approval process clearer, quicker and more consistent. It will also ensure our heritage buildings are protected and maintained for future generations. Height restrictions and design requirements will be unambiguous. A citizen-based design review committee will make final development decisions. The plan will also reduce the number of costly and time-consuming appeals to the Utility and Review Board. But the reasons we need HRMbyDesign go deeper.

Our cities are the engines that drive our economies. For this reason, our cities need to grow. We need to attract more people and we need to keep those already living and working here. To do this, we need buildings that meet the needs of those who will live and work in them. They must be built to respect the environment and the values of our citizens.

Downtown Halifax is the economic, social and cultural centre of our region. Its health and prosperity are directly linked to the health and prosperity of our province. For the capital region to move forward and continue to be a place where our children and their children will want to spend their lives, we need to ensure that HRMbyDesign is embraced.

Smart growth – balanced growth – will mean we can afford the sports and recreation our children deserve, the public spaces our citizens want to enjoy, the sports, arts and cultural facilities that entertain us and brighten our lives.

HRMbyDesign will help us grow in a balanced and strategic way. It is a living plan that will mean we draw more visitors and tourists to our historic downtown and make it an even more attractive place to live and work.

We know the public supports HRMbyDesign. Poll after poll has shown overwhelming support for the plan and its objectives. A recent web-based survey conducted by Zoomerang Online revealed that 80 per cent of those polled support the adoption of a more transparent and streamlined development process as proposed by HRMbyDesign.

Is HRMbyDesign perfect? Few things are perfect. But it is the right solution and the best way forward for our municipality. Striking the right balance between new development and heritage preservation will always require public input and a clearly defined and fair set of rules. HRMbyDesign will accomplish this – and it will address the frustrations and uncertainties that have at times made some of our most publicly spirited citizens appear polarized into winner-takes-all positions.

After all, who is really against the positive growth of HRM? Who is really against preserving our priceless architectural heritage? We need both of these things for HRM to continue to be the best place to live, work and play in our country.

HRMbyDesign will come before Halifax regional council in early 2009 and then people will have another chance to provide their input at a public hearing before it will be made law. I urge everyone to find out more about HRMbyDesign at www.hrmbydesign.ca and to support it.

For the Halifax Regional Municipality, this is an opportunity to achieve the balance we need – balance between growth and development and protection of our heritage – and an opportunity to continue to build our municipality into a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.

[Keith P.]

From everyone's favorite obstructionist in Thursday's Herald:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1093968.html

Trust’s track record

Contrary to Roger Taylor’s column of Nov. 21, the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has supported appropriate development in downtown Halifax, including the Cambridge Suites (six storeys), the Marriott Courtyard Hotel (eight storeys) and the Centennial apartment proposal at the foot of Salter Street (12 storeys).

The Armour Group proposal for the central block of Historic Properties was for nine storeys, not six. The block has an as-of-right height limit of 25 feet, and a mandatory Policy CH-1 to protect the four heritage buildings, not just parts of them.

HRM or the province and Armour Group can save these buildings by exchanging this land for other land downtown. There are 330,000 square feet of vacant land downtown, offering lots of choice.

Several office, hotel and apartment buildings have been approved in downtown Halifax, but not constructed. One reason is that the cost of constructing new buildings exceeds the rents that tenants have been willing to pay.

In the meantime, several heritage buildings have been renovated at a cost tenants are willing to pay. This is our real competitive advantage – heritage buildings that can be economically used for the businesses of the future, while maintaining our unique character.

Phil Pacey, Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia


So he is bragging about 3 short, stubby, faux-Victorian buildings constructed over a period of 20+ years in the downtown core.

Wow. With that kind of support no wonder nothing ever gets built. How ridiculous, and how illustrative of their incredibly skewed and distorted view of reality.

[sdm]

So wait what is it, 1,000,000 square feet of land vacant or 330,000 square feet of land?

[Barrington south]

i can't stand the Cambridge suites :yuck:

[Takeo]

i can't stand the Cambridge suites :yuck:

But it's short. That's the only thing the Heritage Trust cares about.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

But it's short. That's the only thing the Heritage Trust cares about.

Don't forget the Prince George, another monstrosity they somtimes hold up as an example of how development should proceed downtown.

[Bedford_DJ]

Government Proclaims New Halifax Charter
Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations
January 13, 2009 3:40 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halifax Regional Municipality now has more flexibility to respond to its unique challenges and opportunities as the largest municipality in the province and capital of Nova Scotia.

Government proclaimed the HRM Charter Act today, Jan. 13. It includes the basic provisions of the Municipal Government Act with more powers to address the specific needs of HRM. The HRM By Design Act was also proclaimed. It provides the municipality with more tools to guide development efforts for the downtown Halifax area.

"This is significant development not only for HRM but for the whole province," said Carolyn Bolivar-Getson, acting Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. "As the economic hub of Nova Scotia, HRM has the potential for attracting more interest to the whole province in terms of investments, business, infrastructure, and other developments."

The creation of a new charter is in keeping with how other major cities in Canada, such as Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, have responded to the ever-changing challenges and opportunities of regional centres of business and fast-paced population growth areas.

"We've been working toward this Charter for a long time and look forward to working together with the province under this new governance structure," said Mayor Peter Kelly. "Given our growth, HRM by Design will bring clarity and predictability in the development approval process making HRM more livable, vibrant and attractive."

[Haliguy]

Councillors will debate development strategy next month

By Our Staff
Sat. Jan 17 - 4:46 AM
Halifax city hall’s ambitious urban renewal project should come back to regional council early next month and a vote on the matter could happen by the end of March, Mayor Peter Kelly said Friday.

He said a public hearing on the HRM by Design plan will take place after councillors debate the issue and if they agree to move it forward.

"It’s going to council for ratification and alterations, if any, then we’ll move on to the public hearing stage," Mr. Kelly told The Chronicle Herald.

A vote on HRM by Design will be held "hopefully before the end of March," he said.

The city’s HRM by Design study, an urban renewal effort in the works for about 2½ years, includes an element dedicated to improving downtown Halifax. A 17-member task force assigned to the $405,400 research project envisions a downtown that’s liveable, distinct and vibrant.

Planners want 16,000 people to move downtown within the next 15 years, councillors have heard.

Another major goal is to redevelop the Cogswell interchange, which the politicians have been told has been "a blight" on Halifax Regional Municipality.

If all goes well, the site could be transformed into a modern neighbourhood with buildings of varying heights.

Three recommendations hooked to the downtown plan have already been passed by Halifax regional council.

They include:

•Approve HRM by Design’s "vision" for downtown renewal

•Ask the provincial government to make legislative changes that’ll affect future private-sector developments and

•Begin planning and design work on the redevelopment of the Cogswell interchange.

( newsroom@herald.ca)

[someone123]

It's annoying how they call this "urban renewal", since on the one hand it connotes negative imagery of Scotia Square type developments and on the other it falsely implies that this is more than just a regulatory change. HRM by Design isn't a plan to build housing for 16,000 or whatever, it simply allows for developers to do that if they so choose, something they're doing already.

[Bedford_DJ]

I don't know if anybody else noticed but HRM released the final reports for HRM by Design.

www.hrmbydesign.ca (http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/RegionalCentreUrbanDesignStudy.html)

I don't know if there are many changes but this is the FINAL draft and will be what Council decides on next month.