PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Half of survey respondents want to preserve city views, Lindsay Jones Metro News



sdm
Sep 23, 2008, 10:32 AM
Half of survey respondents want to preserve city views
LINDSAY JONES, METRO HALIFAX
September 23, 2008 05:00



Most of us want new buildings downtown, even if it means blocking a few views from Citadel Hill.




A new Bristol Group survey commissioned by Metro Halifax shows that eight in 10 people in urban and suburban HRM feel that new buildings in the downtown are good for the city.


Half said most sightlines from Citadel Hill should be preserved and there needs to be flexibility to allow for low buildings. Three in 10 said they want to keep just a few sightlines and build highrises. Only 12 per cent don’t want the sightlines changed at all. Nine per cent said new buildings are more important than sightlines.


“The public feel that views are important, but you don’t have to keep every single one exactly as it is if it’s at the expense of development,” said Layton Dorey, Bristol Group’s managing director of project development.


Halifax developer Ben McCrea, chairman of Armour Group, believes this means people are open to reviewing the city’s view planes legislation. Those rules have remained virtually unchanged since the 1970s.


“What I make of that is the public is not nearly as driven by that as a sacred cow,” McCrea said.


The fate of McCrea’s controversial Waterside Centre, which would join six buildings at the corner of Duke and Hollis and put a six-storey glass tower on top, will be decided in early October.


“It’s encouraging, from my point of view, to see that there’s some flexibility to allow the downtown core to grow,” said McCrea, who redeveloped the award-winning Founders Square.


Joe Ramia of Argyle Developments said it feels good to know the majority agrees with him. Ramia built Barrington Gate and the Mountain Equipment Co-op building. He’s now working on a proposal for a new World Trade Centre.


“You always have to weigh what’s right for the city,” Ramia said, adding that the views from Citadel Hill are important.


Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia president Phil Pacey, however, also thinks he’s on the side of the majority: The 50 per cent who want to keep most sightlines and allow low buildings.


He doesn’t agree with the three in 10 who expressed a desire to keep just a few sightlines and build highrises.


“The view is important and it’s more than just a few views that we need to protect,” Pacey said.


Pacey says it’s wrong to assume the poll shows people are open to changing view planes, which are specifically designated and protected by bylaws, because the survey uses the term “sightlines.”


Under current policy, sightlines aren’t protected.

Halifax Downtown candidate weigh in:


Jerome Downey:

• Believes it’s possible to protect heritage and grow the city core


• City should redevelop decaying Gottingen Street buildings into mixed residential and commercial space

• New residential buildings should include affordable housing for seniors

Cameron Ells

• “Heritage buff” who likes highrises, so long as they don’t lead to evening ghost towns downtown


• Highrises should be in the right places, like a redeveloped Cogswell interchange, not Fenwick Street


• Wants more mixed-use development, particularly on Gottingen Street, to get more people living downtown

Dawn Sloane

• Heritage and development can co-exist, but developers need to stick to the rules


• Voted against several development proposals approved by council because she felt they didn’t mesh with the city’s Municipal Planning Strategy


• Affordable housing should be part of all new residential developments


• Development should help build distinct, walkable neighbourhoods

James Steuwe

• Heritage can be protected without preventing crucial development projects


• Says he wouldn’t cater to small interest groups


• Would have supported the recently approved towers on Lower Water and South Park streets


• Wants affordable housing in all new residential projects




Article Tags
Halifax-municipal-election

Dmajackson
Sep 23, 2008, 7:50 PM
THis is pretty good news for devfelopers. Maybe the new council will look at the viewplanes again since they were last updated before a lot of HRM residents were born, and before HRM was alamangated.

Maybe they'll get rid of that pesky viewplane down SGR viewing the majestic Fenwick Tower...

Keith P.
Sep 23, 2008, 8:52 PM
They need to get off this idiocy of "requiring affordable housing" in all new residential developments. There are certain ones where that makes sense, and there are others where it makes no sense at all.

I was prepared to support Steuwe over Sloane until I read that in his list of responses.

spryscraper
Sep 23, 2008, 10:26 PM
Why wouldn't it make sense to provide affordable housing in a major, walkable, transit-friendly employment area?

sdm
Sep 23, 2008, 11:09 PM
Why wouldn't it make sense to provide affordable housing in a major, walkable, transit-friendly employment area?

It shouldn't be council who decide if projects have "affordable housing". If council is so concerned then they should enter into a Public/private development. Asking developers to provide affordable housing is just silly,

Besides, what is "affordable"?

someone123
Sep 23, 2008, 11:14 PM
Why wouldn't it make sense to provide affordable housing in a major, walkable, transit-friendly employment area?

There are a number of problems with forcing developers to construct cheaper than market rate units and then giving them out to people. The main problem is that basically it is a binary thing - people either get a unit or they don't - and there's never enough to meet demand. Because of this there is always inherent unfairness.

I see a particularly high amount of unfairness in giving out subsidized units to a privileged few in developments in, say, the South Park Street area. The fact is that there are lots of people who work and pay for housing without the help of the government and have to settle for a part of the city that is less than ideal. In many cases they can't even afford to purchase property and must rent. Many of the programs give out units to the "neediest" people, defined as the poorest, so the unemployed are given units before the working poor. In my opinion if you work at some terrible minimum wage job you should always come out AHEAD of somebody who remains unemployed, but that's not necessarily the case in Canada.

Another big issue is simply that developers and wealthy property owners already pay out disproportionate amounts of money to the government. This money could be used to put towards much fairer direct housing subsidies (i.e. dollars paid out to individuals on a sliding scale to ensure they are guaranteed some kind of housing).

spryscraper
Sep 24, 2008, 1:30 PM
It shouldn't be council who decide if projects have "affordable housing". If council is so concerned then they should enter into a Public/private development. Asking developers to provide affordable housing is just silly

The problem, then, is what incentive do developers have to provide affordable housing if no one tells them to? It seems to me like it would make the most economic sense for them not to if they don't have to.

Perhaps the municipality could set aside a certain number of units per new major development and not tax them, allowing the owner to rent them for cheaper? Or perhaps they could compromise and allow X number of extra stories on a development if the developer would set aside a certain percentage of units for people on fixed income or the working poor. I agree that people struggling to make ends meet, but are still part of the workforce, should absolutely have priority over those who would just sit at home all day and live off the taxpayers. There is no reason for people who have removed themselves from the workforce to live downtown, whereas there is every reason for those who are working but can't afford a car/rent/etc to live within walking distance of their workplace.

The city needs to find a better system than developments that are 100% subsidized (Uniacke Square, Greystone, or the "Pubs" for example) and generally this means incorporating "affordable housing" (and yes, this does need to be defined) into otherwise market-priced developments.

worldlyhaligonian
Sep 24, 2008, 4:03 PM
Yeah, I think that "affordable" needs to be defined. Do I believe in housing that individuals with low incomes can afford, yes most certainly. Does it have any priority in the private realm, no.

I find this all funny... but also scary because this responsibility of public housing is the government on every level. Hell, what would be the point of becoming educated/working hard if you could end up with a sweet pad in a new development that other people had to pay significantly more for. Many of these proposals are directed at those retiring or young professionals. The real estate that alot of these projects are on is some of the best in the city. I don't disagree with public housing and I don't think it should be in the boonies or localized to a region, but how can you expect subsidized housing in such prime real estate areas. Hey, lets put public housing on Young Ave. Give me a break.

Unless there is public money in a development, it would be like asking a new private school to add a class full of kids who don't pay for that school's extra services (beyond taxes). In the end, unless there is a well structured public-private parternership, I don't understand how they make such ingorant statements in council.

someone123
Sep 24, 2008, 4:39 PM
The problem, then, is what incentive do developers have to provide affordable housing if no one tells them to?

Not everybody can buy luxury condos, so there will always be some developers left taking on lower end projects. There are plenty of rental buildings under construction around the city and many affordable buildings in places like Dartmouth and Sackville... then on top of this there is the fact that Halifax already has per capita far more public housing than any other city of significant size in Canada.

worldlyhaligonian
Sep 24, 2008, 5:12 PM
Not everybody can buy luxury condos, so there will always be some developers left taking on lower end projects. There are plenty of rental buildings under construction around the city and many affordable buildings in places like Dartmouth and Sackville... then on top of this there is the fact that Halifax already has per capita far more public housing than any other city of significant size in Canada.

But beyond this point, Dawn Sloan has definitely asked for public housing to appear in some of these luxury developments. Wasn't there some kind of scandal in the past where she ended up owning or living in subsidized housing?

In any event, the issues go beyond development related issues. Sure, appartments are significantly more expensive in the South End, but anywhere else in the city is a bit of a deal compared to other cities in Canada. Furthermore, it is clear that there are wage structure issues here, and I believe in a living wage. That being said, I don't think any low-income person needs to live in the downtown or south-end of Halifax for any employment related reasons. Our city just isn't that big and I (who live in the West-end) walk pretty much everywhere. There are a ton of what I would consider affordable places to live in other areas of the peninsula.