[Dmajackson]

This is the City Cente Atlantic residential addition mentioned in the Development Rumors thread. Some basic facts;

- HRM Case # is 01227
- On the middle part of City Centre Atlantic block (Birmingham-Dresdon-SGR-Artillery)
- Will top out at approximately 25m above street level
- Most of the siding will be aluminum (various styles)
- Viewplane - #9 (entire lot)
- Developer - Dexel Developments Limited
- District: 12 - Dawn Sloane
- Public Information Meeting: February 19, 2009 @ 7:00pm in Halifax Hall (City Hall)

Case 01227 Details (http://halifax.ca/planning/Case01227Details.html)
Elevations (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/Case01227Elevations.pdf)
Renderings (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/Case01227Renderings.pdf)
Floor Plans (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/Case01227FloorPlans.pdf)

See the first link for any other files. :)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Thats nice, and it won't take forever to be built either!

[someone123]

Interesting design. I was expecting it just to be grey brick like the rest of the mall.

This will be good for Pete's and the other mall tenants. Not sure what it looks like inside now, but last time I was in there it was already doing much better than a few years prior.

It would be nice if they'd replace the CIBC building etc.

[Takeo]

WOW!!!!! Great job Napier!!!!! That's a really fantastic looking building! Very modern. Very interesting. Looks really high quality too. I find the 'running bond' style window placement really interesting. And I love the way they wrap the corners. And that totemic black element articulated from the face of the building and running down to the street entrance. Nice! Best of all... not a red brick, fake green roof or precast panel in sight!!!!! I'm extremely impressed.

[terrynorthend]

I'm impressed too. I clicked on "elevations" first and was frightened, the line drawings don't do it justice. The renderings are awesome. I love the corner windows.

[Jonovision]

It looks quite nice. I like it. It kind of reminds of the Computer Science building at Dal. And I like the articulation on the Spring Garden side.
It would be nice if they could redevelop the Spring Garden lots there. HMV isn't too bad, but the other are not nice at all. Would be nice to get some small towers on the two corners. Something maybe just a storey or two taller then this.

[Takeo]

Just took another look at the elevation drawings. The tall black elements are perforated black aluminum. Looks like Napier stole a page from Brian MacKay's book there with the NSCAD cladding. But that's a good thing!! I wish more Halifax architects would 'steal' from Brian! :) The rest of the cladding is also aluminum (and glass of course). And there are 'sun shades' which I'm thinking might be redwood slats or something similar (reminiscent of the fencing behind the Dal Computer Science building).

[worldlyhaligonian]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3389/3265233934_17ae23c8b2_b.jpg

A nice shot of how it will add density.

[hfx_chris]

Wasn't somebody saying once how it's nearly impossible to take a photo of anywhere in Halifax without getting Fenwick in it, somehow :)

[sdm]

Wasn't somebody saying once how it's nearly impossible to take a photo of anywhere in Halifax without getting Fenwick in it, somehow :)

Hahaha nice one

[Dmajackson]

To no-ones surpise the meeting has been cancelled tonight. The new meeting is scheduled for next Thursday (26th), same time, same place.

Get this; there's been a development for Hammonds Plains in the work for awhile and the meeting was supposed to be tonight. This is the third time this meeting has been postponed due to bad weather. :haha:

Mother Nature vs. Developers ... so far Mother Nature is dominating. :P

[Dmajackson]

Did anyone make it to the meeting yesterday?

[Jonovision]

I was there. It was fairly low key. The vast majority of the public who attended were residents of Heritage Way. The condo building that is on top of the other half of City Centre Atlantic. They had the usual concerns; loss of light; increased traffic; rental units; construction noise. Nothing that sounded like it could persuade any councillors (except for Ms. Sloan of course) to not put this one through.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Was this approved?

It will be visible in the skyline and thankfully cover up that blank wall of the ING building next door.

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/99280294/original.jpg

[Dmajackson]

^It was just an information meeting "Worldly_Haligonian".

Man do I wish the Alexander would go up. That parking lot is butt ugly down there. :(

[Dmajackson]

Here's two pictures of the site taken by me today;

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3476/3369260936_3d658da077_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3369426376_db4b238640_b.jpg

[miesh111]

This project was approved last night, according to the herald:

Four projects approved
HRM council gives go-ahead to developments at Morris Street, City Centre Atlantic, Roy Building and Discovery Centre
By JEFFREY SIMPSON and DAVENE JEFFREY Staff Reporters
Wed. Apr 1 - 5:36 AM
Four downtown Halifax developments have been given approval while council continues to ponder the HRM by Design strategy.

Councillors agreed Tuesday evening with a staff recommendation to grandfather four projects that follow the rules of the city’s existing Municipal Planning Strategy.

Louis Lawen of Dexel Developments Ltd. spoke during the afternoon sitting of committee of the whole about wanting to proceed with two downtown projects — an $18-million addition to City Centre Atlantic over Pete’s Frootique on Dresden Row, and a $16-million, 10-storey commercial-residential structure on the site of the old Victoria Suites apartment building at Morris and Hollis streets.

Reducing the height of his buildings would make them less economically viable, he said.

"None of these projects are affecting any view planes," he said.

Council agreed that all four projects must be completed within three years after they are started.

"Our intention is to go full speed ahead," Louis Resnick, who is working on the Roy Building on Barrington Street, told committee of the whole.

Frank Medjuck defended his $30-million development of the Discovery Centre on Barrington Street, pointing out that council was letting the downtown stagnate while the Bayers Lake shopping area on the outskirts of the city is sprawling out of control.

Councillors also agreed that HRM by Design should include the site of the proposed new World Trade and Convention Centre, a couple of city blocks including the former Halifax Herald Ltd. property and the Midtown Tavern site.

The first reading of HRM by Design will take place during next Tuesday’s regular council meeting.

Council also agreed in principle that two heritage conservation districts — Barrington Street South and Historic Properties and Granville Mall — become part of HRM by Design.

Council has scheduled three days, May 5-7, for public hearings on HRM by Design.

( jsimpson@herald.ca)

( djeffrey@herald.ca)

[eastcoastal]

The project was not approved.

Council approved the grandfathering of the application.

It will still have to go through the existing development agreement process and adhere to the current MPS rather than be subjected to the potentially new rules and new process inherent in HRMbyDesign.

[worldlyhaligonian]

yeah, but this one will likely have easy approval and construction. this is unlike the other contentious proposals such as hollis and morris.

[Barrington south]

I find the fact that even this building is not allowed under HBD to be quiet disturbing

[worldlyhaligonian]

It definitely meets HBD standards, but the developer would obviously prefer to have it grandfathered in so there is no delay in waiting for HBD to be finalized.

[Dmajackson]

They have the floor plans up on the details page now.

I don't think those were there previously.

[sdm]

It definitely meets HBD standards, but the developer would obviously prefer to have it grandfathered in so there is no delay in waiting for HBD to be finalized.

Actually it wouldn;t meet the HBD due to set back and angle control

[eastcoastal]

No it wouldn't meet HbD, but I don't think that's a shortcoming of HbD.

HbD is designed to promote good buildings. What is proposed here is god, but not because of what's allowed. The developer and Architect (Michael Napier, I believe for this one) have suggested something that looks like it fulfills many of the intents of HbD, if not the letter. They'd certainly be allowed to develop something FAR less sympathetic to the city and to the street than this, and that's what HbD is meant to remedy. Sure, it means that some potentially good developments wouldn't be allowed in their current forms, but it also means that many terrible ones wouldn't be allowed.

My guess is that if HbD was in place prior to the design work and Development Agreement application for this particular project, the same developer and architect would have produced another excellent end result.

I see this as a case of doing well in SPITE of regulations rather than because of them.

[someone123]

I think it's a bit weird to be making this kind of analysis. Sure, it's possible that some theoretical good designs would not be allowed under HbD, but it's also possible that there are others out there. The real question is whether or not it leads to higher quality buildings, more infill development, and better streetscapes overall.

[sdm]

I think it's a bit weird to be making this kind of analysis. Sure, it's possible that some theoretical good designs would not be allowed under HbD, but it's also possible that there are others out there. The real question is whether or not it leads to higher quality buildings, more infill development, and better streetscapes overall.

HBD i believe may take the appeals and delays in developments away, but it will place restrictions on developments that will likely make things less attractive to build.

[Dmajackson]

Well this hasn't been talked about in a looonnnngggg time. :P

According to a Staff Report this project is still in the plans and has a Staff Report underway.

[kph06]

Dexel has quite a bit on the go right now with Greenvale Lofts and The Vic. I suspect you'd hear more once at least one of the two is done with. They had 3 years from the decision to grandfather it in the old rules to get going, so they have some time to work with. They should at least start the approval process soon because I'm sure they're be some opposition.

[Jonovision]

Considering the turn out at the original public information meeting for this proposal I don't see it having much problems getting through the public hearing. The only people who showed up besides myself were mainly residents of the other condo building on top of City Centre Atlantic and I don't really think many of their concerns are legit.

[Dmajackson]

They've revised the renderings and elevations for this one to apparently break up the bulk of the building;

Case 01227 Details (http://halifax.ca/planning/Case01227Details.html)

[Jonovision]

Looks good. I like the addition of the balconies.

[Jonovision]

I pulled these off the document.

http://inlinethumb09.webshots.com/43784/2029188510096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2029188510096709958Ptdvjh)

http://inlinethumb20.webshots.com/44499/2663164480096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2663164480096709958uRrBtf)

http://inlinethumb26.webshots.com/44441/2377628450096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2377628450096709958bFTJxi)

[Dmajackson]

The proposed Development Agreement is going before the PAC and HAC tonight;

Development Agreement 01227 (http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/documents/hac712.pdf)

[alps]

The proposed Development Agreement is going before the PAC and HAC tonight;

Development Agreement 01227 (http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/documents/hac712.pdf)

Wow, those letters from NIMBYs at the bottom are something. "Traffic...parking...traffic...parking...my view!" :rolleyes:.

My favourite quotes:

will make an already difficult parking sitation on Spring Garden much, much worse. This will cause greatly decreased shopping traffic [...] resulting in decreased GST and the shuttering of shops and restaurants in the district.

The inevitable added traffic load would be seriously dangerous for all in this area, especially for, but not limited to, the residents. This is a basic issue of health and safety!

[...]

There is plenty of suitable development space even only a few blocks away. Let new apartment buildings be developed there!

It would be an unsitely structure built in the fashion of the Paramount and Martello complex, where in the back-side of these structures, they (units) are impacting one another unfavorably in poor design.

:previous: No, there were no typos in the transcribing of that one :)

If Dexel had similar concerns for its future inhabitants, they would not create ghetto conditions, devoid of light, privacy, and decency.

The density created by the proposed development [...] has to be negative. The previously secure balconies on the third floor are now to become an almost irresistible crime scene. [...] If the proposed development takes place, we will survive only at the cost of surrendering our personal security.

Some legitimate concerns, but mostly a load of alarmist silliness and subjective opinion presented as fact. Personally I like the density and the prospect of an entrance and people on Birmingham Street, where currently there is only a loading dock for Pete's and a big blank wall. Legally speaking, I think all the blather about "privacy infringement" is total BS.

[Wishblade]

^ Sorry, I didnt see a legitimate concern in there. All complete NIMBY bs.

This thing is 5 stories people, 5 stories! They make it sound like its going to be 50 or something...

[Dmajackson]

How exactly can the parking around SGR get any worse anyways?

[sdm]

How exactly can the parking around SGR get any worse anyways?

easy, once HRM sells the lands on clyde street, which they should do and get on with it. Those two sites should have been allowed to go 12-15 stories, but thanks to sloane they are more or less 7.

[Keith P.]

Reports this morning are that this failed to get approved at committee last night, though it still remains up to the full council to vote yes or no.

[Dmajackson]

The Development Agreement appears to be going before Regional Council Tuesday evening.

In a reverse of normal Halifax approval process the Heritage Advisory Commitee suggested Approval while the District 12 PAC suggested rejection (something about a dead wall).

[someone123]

Are the parkades in this area even full? Park Lane has a pretty large one and there's a lot of underground parking in maybe a half a dozen buildings. On-street parking is hard to find but that's something that just does not exist in sufficient quantities once an area hits a certain level of density. Spring Garden Road is busy enough that nobody should expect it to be like a small town where you just drive up and park wherever you feel like.

If there really is a serious lack of parking there the solution is to include parking structures on the Clyde Street lots.

It looks like this building does have two blank walls facing Spring Garden Road, but those are in the interior of the block. I don't imagine that the little Atlantic Photo Supply building, etc. are going to be there forever - they should and probably will be torn down and replaced with something a couple of storeys taller that will cover up the buildings in behind.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Are the parkades in this area even full? Park Lane has a pretty large one and there's a lot of underground parking in maybe a half a dozen buildings. On-street parking is hard to find but that's something that just does not exist in sufficient quantities once an area hits a certain level of density. Spring Garden Road is busy enough that nobody should expect it to be like a small town where you just drive up and park wherever you feel like.

That's the problem though, everyone including merchants, seem to expect a lot of cheap on-street parking, which as you point isn't going to happen on Spring Garden Road.

I think what this area, and downtown in general needs, is a way to communicate to drivers which lots are free. In Montreal they have electronic signs throughout the downtown that tell you how many spots are left in each parkade. I'm sure if this system were setup someone could make an app which would supply people the same information to a blackberry or iphone. I also think the rates for onstreet parking should be reviewed. Can you still park for free after six? If so this just encourages people to cruise around looking for a hard to find free meter instead of going directly to an underused parkade. Free parking on weekends and evenings doesn't make sense in this area anymore, there is too much demand at those times.

As for the development I can't see council shooting this down.

[fenwick16]

I think what this area, and downtown in general needs, is a way to communicate to drivers which lots are free. In Montreal they have electronic signs throughout the downtown that tell you how many spots are left in each parkade. I'm sure if this system were setup someone could make an app which would supply people the same information to a blackberry or iphone.

This sounds like a great idea. It would require some collaboration between various private parking lot operators and city owned parking lots but if it could be implemented it would be great for reducing time spent searching for a parking spot.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This would be more attractive if split into two towers that were 3-4 stories taller.

[spaustin]

That's the problem though, everyone including merchants, seem to expect a lot of cheap on-street parking, which as you point isn't going to happen on Spring Garden Road.

I think what this area, and downtown in general needs, is a way to communicate to drivers which lots are free. In Montreal they have electronic signs throughout the downtown that tell you how many spots are left in each parkade. I'm sure if this system were setup someone could make an app which would supply people the same information to a blackberry or iphone. I also think the rates for onstreet parking should be reviewed. Can you still park for free after six? If so this just encourages people to cruise around looking for a hard to find free meter instead of going directly to an underused parkade. Free parking on weekends and evenings doesn't make sense in this area anymore, there is too much demand at those times.

As for the development I can't see council shooting this down.

Yep, it's still free after 6:00 and on weekends.

[DigitalNinja]

This would be more attractive if split into two towers that were 3-4 stories taller.
I agree completely even if the towers were a little thinner or something and be 3-4 stories taller would look better, but I don't think it looks horrible and will add some much needed investment.

[beyeas]

I agree that this development could definitely stand to be better but WOW the comments made by email and at the meeting were soooo laughable.
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100309ca1121iii.pdf

Not only the snotty comments by "owners" about those worthless drifters (my sarcasm inserted here) who can only afford to rent, but all the complaints about how developments like this increase the number of people in the area. DUH!? THAT'S THE FRICKIN POINT! YOU ARE LIVING DOWNTOWN. Seriously! ARG! If you want peace and quiet, move to the country, but the point of downtown residental is to increase the density of people to make businesses viable and the downtown alive! Morons.

[mcmcclassic]

I agree that this development could definitely stand to be better but WOW the comments made by email and at the meeting were soooo laughable.
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100309ca1121iii.pdf

Not only the snotty comments by "owners" about those worthless drifters (my sarcasm inserted here) who can only afford to rent, but all the complaints about how developments like this increase the number of people in the area. DUH!? THAT'S THE FRICKIN POINT! YOU ARE LIVING DOWNTOWN. Seriously! ARG! If you want peace and quiet, move to the country, but the point of downtown residental is to increase the density of people to make businesses viable and the downtown alive! Morons.

If you read the comments in that .pdf file without knowing what is being proposed, you'd be led to believe that they've proposed a 50 storey tower, not a 5 storey one! This backwards thinking towards the dt and density growth is scary really.

[Wishblade]

If you read the comments in that .pdf file without knowing what is being proposed, you'd be led to believe that they've proposed a 50 storey tower, not a 5 storey one! This backwards thinking towards the dt and density growth is scary really.

Im not overly concerned. Nobody listens to bozo's like them anymore anyway. Though it is rediculous that people with such thoughts exist in this city. They do realize Lunenburg is only about an hour away right? :P

If this doesn't get approved I'll be pretty surprised.

[someone123]

The question is whether or not the comments have merit, and the ones I've read so far just look terrible. I get a kick out of the ones complaining about how the units would be undesirable because they're so close together. So what? If you don't like one, don't buy it. The question being considered here is whether or not this building unduly affects neighbours and the answer is that it doesn't. It is totally routine infill.

The people complaining about construction next door are also on very shaky ground; both City Centre Atlantic and Park Lane were designed to have residential built on top of them.

[sdm]

Committee fears wind-tunnel effect
City to examine $18m downtown project today
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Tue. Mar 9 - 4:53 AM

A five-storey addition proposed for City Centre Atlantic could create a wind tunnel and looks like "a blank wall" from Spring Garden Road, says the head of a committee that looked at the project.

"Both of those were kind of the major concerns from the committee members as to why we recommended rejecting the proposal," Heather Ternoway, with the downtown Halifax planning advisory committee, said Monday.

Today, Halifax regional council will examine the $18-million project, proposed by Dexel Developments Ltd. of Halifax. The addition, designed to house nearly 100 apartments, is slated to be built over Pete’s Frootique on Dresden Row.

The project could increase wind for pedestrians on Brenton Place and Birmingham Street, Ternoway said.

"But I think the big concern is the public space in between the proposed addition and the Heritage Way condominiums that’s there," she said.

The condominiums are part of City Centre Atlantic, fronting on Artillery Place, said Ternoway, a planner with Dalhousie University’s cities and environment unit. The condos lie to the north of where the apartments would be built.

"The proposed addition would leave some space at the current roof level of City Centre Atlantic and then put the addition on, so there’s this little tunnel of public space that would probably have pretty windy conditions," she said.

In a report to council, her committee complained about the "non-independence of the wind impact statement" that project architect Michael Napier prepared.

"The wind study was not complete," Ternoway said. "They never did a wind tunnel test on this building to look on the effects on the street or on the adjacent building or the public space between that building and Heritage Way."

Napier doubts the 18-metre-wide space between the proposed addition and the condominiums will be affected drastically by addition wind.

"I don’t think it’s going to make it any windier," he said Monday. "But to cover our bases . . . the developer is actually getting another opinion, so that (concern about impartiality) will disappear, I think."

City Centre Atlantic is controlled by Pyxis Real Estate Equities Inc. of Toronto, but the planned apartment complex would be owned by Dexel, which designed and plans to build the addition.

The planning advisory committee was critical of the addition’s south-facing facade.

"It just wouldn’t do anything, that’s the problem," Ternoway said. "Having a wall with absolutely no windows or openings or balconies doesn’t increase any liveliness on the street or any people that are going to be inhabiting that building having a view of the street."

Her committee’s report notes balconies and some glass has been added to the design, but there’s "still a significant portion of blank wall."

Spring Garden Road is "such an important street in the city, it really seems like a missed opportunity," Ternoway said.

"It’s not right at street level, but you would still see basically a blank wall if you were walking down Spring Garden Road looking across (and up) at the building."

Napier said the wall is blank because it’s on the property line.

"Someone could build up against there and cover the whole thing up anyway," he said.

But "compared to what we started with when it was much blanker, most people wouldn’t, I don’t think, consider it a blank wall," Napier said.

The proposed project faces Spring Garden Road, but it is set back about 20 metres from the street, he said.

"If you were walking on the north side of Spring Garden, you wouldn’t even be able to see the building," Napier said. "You’d have a hard enough time on the south side of Spring Garden seeing it."

City staffers are recommending council approve the development agreement for the project.

"If they want to consider adopting the proposal, they need to schedule a public hearing," said Richard Harvey, a senior municipal planner.

A public hearing could be held at the end of this month, he said.

"That’s what’s anticipated," Harvey said.

( clambie@herald.ca)

[fenwick16]

I hope that these people realize that if they drive developers away from Halifax then eventually the downtown core will become a ghetto (unless the various levels of government turn it into a city like Louisburg that is strictly for tourists).

[Takeo]

Wind tunnel tests?! Good lord... it's 5 stories?!?! We need to conduct wind tunnel tests now anytime someone want to build something bigger than a McDonalds?

As for the blank wall on "Spring Garden"... I went back a page in this thread to view the renderings again and the building doesn't even come close to fronting on Spring Garden Road. It is soooo far set back that you would see the building from either side of Spring Garden Road. And like Napier said... you don't put windows on a property line! This committee is crazy.

[Empire]

Wind studies shouldn't even be considered under 10 storeys. Halifax is a windy city and no policy will change that.

[someone123]

This appears to all be a pretext for torpedoing the development because some people in Heritage Way are unhappy with the idea of having a new neighbour. That is not a good reason for denying a development application.

The wind studies are pretty sad and tend to be horribly distorted by people who either are being dishonest or just don't understand them. I've heard multiple councillors for example look at a wind study and gasp at how there will be "23 gusts per year over 60 km/h" or whatever only to be told that the number is in fact lower with the new development in place. These buildings aren't magical, they just sometimes deflect wind and it's pretty easy to account for that with the design. Often a development results in less wind because it shelters the street more than an empty lot. Usually the net effect seems to be roughly zero, despite Gloria McCluskey's dramatic tales of being blown around by the Maritime Centre.

[Dmajackson]

Does anybody know what happened at Regional Council earlier tonight? It wasn't televized ...

[fenwick16]

Once again the anti-development forces in Halifax strike down a development. It seems to me that the HRM council is controlled by anti-development groups that tend to be wealthy land owners in the South End. This may be an extremely narrowed-mined view by myself but having watched political forces in Halifax over the past 40 years (that I have been following the Halifax area news) it certainly seems to be the case.

I often wonder where Halifax would be today without these various committees that seem to have the power to block almost any development. Now Halifax has HRM by Design which supposedly will speed up developments but which in fact limits high rises to areas such as the Cogswell interchange which may not be developed for decades (by which time there will be limitations against highrises in that area).

Forgive me if I am being narrow-minded, but why are wealthy Haligonians allowed to force new development proposals to take years to be approved by which time the developers typically have given up, or the developments are no longer feasible. Where would Halifax be today without these anti-development forces? It is hard to say because I don't know how long these strong anti-development forces have existed. In my opinion the HRM would be a metropolitan area of about 600,000 - 700,000 people by now without these forces. I realize that it would come with a price since some heritage buildings may have been destroyed. However, if Halifax had reached its full potential then it would of had many more heritage buildings in the first place. Boston managed to become a large metropolis and still save much of its heritage.

Is there anyway to counteract the anti-development forces? This isn't some far fetched conspiracy theory. Anyone who has followed Halifax politics for a few decades would know what I am referring to. It is an ultra-conservative wing that controls the HRM.

This is my rant. I am fed-up with these people forcing the middle-class and poor to leave Nova Scotia for Ontario and Alberta while they turn the HRM and Nova Scotia into a resort for the rich. And why don't they at least give the few remaining middle-class and poor a CFL team and stadium to cheer them up while they serve these rich snobs. (My apologies to wealthy people who are not snobs). Moncton, a much smaller city is able to build a stadium and potentially attract a CFL team.

One indication of my point - the most practical route leading off the peninsula, the Northwest Arm bridge has been repeatedly rejected with little discussion while places like Africville were bulldozed to make way for the MacKay bridge.

[someone123]

I don't think it was struck down. Allnovascotia is reporting that it's headed for a public hearing...?

[fenwick16]

Hasn't this one already been around for several months? Does every project require a public hearing? It just seems like this anti-development attitude is unique to the HRM. In Dartmouth, once the King's Wharf project came out then a couple councilors started talking about introducing new viewplanes bylaws in Dartmouth. I wish HRM had councillors who had the courage to just approve developments instead of being swayed every time by these various anti-development committees. I think quite often the opposition actually comes from one or two councillors within HRM council who then go to their anti-development friends for support.

[sdm]

Once again the anti-development forces in Halifax strike down a development. It seems to me that the HRM council is controlled by anti-development groups that tend to be wealthy land owners in the South End. This may be an extremely narrowed-mined view by myself but having watched political forces in Halifax over the past 40 years (that I have been following the Halifax area news) it certainly seems to be the case.

I often wonder where Halifax would be today without these various committees that seem to have the power to block almost any development. Now Halifax has HRM by Design which supposedly will speed up developments but which in fact limits high rises to areas such as the Cogswell interchange which may not be developed for decades (by which time there will be limitations against highrises in that area).

Forgive me if I am being narrow-minded, but why are wealthy Haligonians allowed to force new development proposals to take years to be approved by which time the developers typically have given up, or the developments are no longer feasible. Where would Halifax be today without these anti-development forces? It is hard to say because I don't know how long these strong anti-development forces have existed. In my opinion the HRM would be a metropolitan area of about 600,000 - 700,000 people by now without these forces. I realize that it would come with a price since some heritage buildings may have been destroyed. However, if Halifax had reached its full potential then it would of had many more heritage buildings in the first place. Boston managed to become a large metropolis and still save much of its heritage.

Is there anyway to counteract the anti-development forces? This isn't some far fetched conspiracy theory. Anyone who has followed Halifax politics for a few decades would know what I am referring to. It is an ultra-conservative wing that controls the HRM.

This is my rant. I am fed-up with these people forcing the middle-class and poor to leave Nova Scotia for Ontario and Alberta while they turn the HRM and Nova Scotia into a resort for the rich. And why don't they at least give the few remaining middle-class and poor a CFL team and stadium to cheer them up while they serve these rich snobs. (My apologies to wealthy people who are not snobs). Moncton, a much smaller city is able to build a stadium and potentially attract a CFL team.

One indication of my point - the most practical route leading off the peninsula, the Northwest Arm bridge has been repeatedly rejected with little discussion while places like Africville were bulldozed to make way for the MacKay bridge.

I find you are sterotyping weathly people and south end residents as anti development, which is HARDLY the case.

[fenwick16]

As the HRM grows in population the South End anti-development groups will become less and less important, especially since they seem intent on limited growth on the Peninsula. As the suburbs and Dartmouth grow, the voices of the South End anti-development groups will eventually become irrelevant. Then maybe the HRM will become a true democracy.

[beyeas]

I find you are sterotyping weathly people and south end residents as anti development, which is HARDLY the case.

There are several south end residents (myself included) who are members of this forum and are pro-development, so you definitely don't want to paint with too big a brush Fenwick.

Having said that... I understand your frustration and I agree that it is often (but by no means exclusively) older south end residents who yearn for the "good ol' days" of Halifax before it began to grow.

I am of the current view that, as frustrating as things are sometimes (the comments from Heritage Way being a great example of that), there are a large number of big scale developments currently approved and the focus right now should be on getting as many of those built as possible.

I equally get frustrated by some of the wingnuts that are given a voice in this city, and by the glacial rate of progress sometimes. But... to be fair, there are a surprising number of totally approved developments that have the potential to radically change things and yet seem to never get built (at least yet). Lately we have had several examples of that in the Trinity and Sackville projects. If UG Towers, IP, Discovery Centre, Alexander Keiths Site, Kings Wharf etc were all to get built in the next 5 years, just think of how dramatically that would change things! Not getting some of those already approved projects built would be even more frustrating to me then not getting a new project approved.

[fenwick16]

There are several south end residents (myself included) who are members of this forum and are pro-development, so you definitely don't want to paint with too big a brush Fenwick.

Having said that... I understand your frustration and I agree that it is often (but by no means exclusively) older south end residents who yearn for the "good ol' days" of Halifax before it began to grow.

I am of the current view that, as frustrating as things are sometimes (the comments from Heritage Way being a great example of that), there are a large number of big scale developments currently approved and the focus right now should be on getting as many of those built as possible.

I equally get frustrated by some of the wingnuts that are given a voice in this city, and by the glacial rate of progress sometimes. But... to be fair, there are a surprising number of totally approved developments that have the potential to radically change things and yet seem to never get built (at least yet). Lately we have had several examples of that in the Trinity and Sackville projects. If UG Towers, IP, Discovery Centre, Alexander Keiths Site, Kings Wharf etc were all to get built in the next 5 years, just think of how dramatically that would change things! Not getting some of those already approved projects built would be even more frustrating to me then not getting a new project approved.

Thank you for the clarification beyeas. I agree with you completely. I am sure that many in the South End do not fit my stereotype.

Wingnuts; that is the word I was looking for. Initially I had it as wingbats (i.e. dingbats) before I took it out. What is happening to my memory? Thanks again beyeas.

The Alexander Keiths residential tower is one that frustrates me. This could have proceeded years ago as a 27 floor residential tower and would have brought more residents to the downtown core but it was held up until it was no longer feasible to proceed. (I liked the design also). Maybe it will proceed sometime in the future as a shorter tower.

[terrynorthend]

Thank you for the clarification beyeas. I agree with you completely. I am sure that many in the South End do not fit my stereotype.



Just to add, many of the anti-development voices come from beyond the South End as well. I personally have met those who live in Dartmouth and the North End, and heard/read comments from many who live in any and all the HRM suburbs. They also run the socio-economic and age spectrum.

Having said that. All your points are spot on about a vocal few obstructing progress without consideration for new development merits, individually or on the whole. Its so knee-jerk its become predictable and sad.

[sdm]

As the HRM grows in population the South End anti-development groups will become less and less important, especially since they seem intent on limited growth on the Peninsula. As the suburbs and Dartmouth grow, the voices of the South End anti-development groups will eventually become irrelevant. Then maybe the HRM will become a true democracy.

If you want to know where to stereotype the anti development, look no further then the Heritage trust. Look at the list of people on the heritage trust, and do the correaltion to where they work, or party they are ajoined to. I mean a number of the members are dalhouise facility, does that mean dalhouise is anti development?

That is the group you have an issue with, not weathly south end residents.

[worldlyhaligonian]

As the HRM grows in population the South End anti-development groups will become less and less important, especially since they seem intent on limited growth on the Peninsula. As the suburbs and Dartmouth grow, the voices of the South End anti-development groups will eventually become irrelevant. Then maybe the HRM will become a true democracy.

You are totally off base... the actual people that are causing the problems aren't even taken seriously by the wealthy of the South End.

The people doing it are the Heritage nuts, who are maybe upper middle class at best... the problem is that they are now politically connected (via NDP) and they have too much time on their hands. (Keep in mind I am pro-heritage preservation, but I am against not building towers because of proximity to old structures.)

In general, I see every group in HRM as being anti-development... if you want me to list the worst offenders, here we go:

1) Heritage Nazis (mostly older in age)
2) Friends of various "places" (see number 1)
3) City Councillors who are ignorant or have personal biases
4) Enivronmental Bandwagon (mix of different ages, may contradict themselves by being pro-heritage as well)
5) NIMBY families who don't understand the issues or have been misinformed by groups 1-4
6) Affordable housing advocates who may want developers to rediculously incorporate cheap units into their private developments

The sum total of this is what you describe as the anti-development behavior. If I left a group of the list, let me know.

[planarchy]

You are totally off base... the actual people that are causing the problems aren't even taken seriously by the wealthy of the South End.

The people doing it are the Heritage nuts, who are maybe upper middle class at best... the problem is that they are now politically connected (via NDP) and they have too much time on their hands. (Keep in mind I am pro-heritage preservation, but I am against not building towers because of proximity to old structures.)

In general, I see every group in HRM as being anti-development... if you want me to list the worst offenders, here we go:

1) Heritage Nazis (mostly older in age)
2) Friends of various "places" (see number 1)
3) City Councillors who are ignorant or have personal biases
4) Enivronmental Bandwagon (mix of different ages, may contradict themselves by being pro-heritage as well)
5) NIMBY families who don't understand the issues or have been misinformed by groups 1-4
6) Affordable housing advocates who may want developers to rediculously incorporate cheap units into their private developments

The sum total of this is what you describe as the anti-development behavior. If I left a group of the list, let me know.

While I get your point and can agree with these somewhat exaggerated generalizations, the last one - affordable housing advocates - is out of place.

Ignoring more radical groups like the Halifax Coalition against Poverty, affordable housing is really misunderstood in this province. There is no reason why affordable, non-market housing cannot be included in large developments. I would argue that it actually makes the city a much more interesting place, and can work to make it safer, more vibrant, and even more economically sustainable by encouraging mixed-income growth.

The key is providing incentives to developers, such as social-bonus zoning like they do in Vancouver. They offer developers more height or Floor Area Ratio (or Floor Space Index if you prefer) for inclusion of social housing. Similar schemes can be found in other cities, but in general isn't a standard practice in Canada. On the other hand, in the Netherlands, A full 30% of all units in new developments must be allocated for social housing. In return the city offers various incentives, often drastic cuts in the cost of land, since all is controlled by the city. So maybe this model isn't so doable here, but my point is that there are options and that affordable housing and advocates for it aren't a hinderance to development. If we do things right and use a policy of social bonus zoning (which I thought was a part of HRMbyDesign, but I'm not certain and don't know the details), advocating for social housing can actually be advocating for more height!

[worldlyhaligonian]

While I get your point and can agree with these somewhat exaggerated generalizations, the last one - affordable housing advocates - is out of place.

Ignoring more radical groups like the Halifax Coalition against Poverty, affordable housing is really misunderstood in this province. There is no reason why affordable, non-market housing cannot be included in large developments. I would argue that it actually makes the city a much more interesting place, and can work to make it safer, more vibrant, and even more economically sustainable by encouraging mixed-income growth.

The key is providing incentives to developers, such as social-bonus zoning like they do in Vancouver. They offer developers more height or Floor Area Ratio (or Floor Space Index if you prefer) for inclusion of social housing. Similar schemes can be found in other cities, but in general isn't a standard practice in Canada. On the other hand, in the Netherlands, A full 30% of all units in new developments must be allocated for social housing. In return the city offers various incentives, often drastic cuts in the cost of land, since all is controlled by the city. So maybe this model isn't so doable here, but my point is that there are options and that affordable housing and advocates for it aren't a hinderance to development. If we do things right and use a policy of social bonus zoning (which I thought was a part of HRMbyDesign, but I'm not certain and don't know the details), advocating for social housing can actually be advocating for more height!

But we don't have these policies in place! There are no real incentives that I am aware of! I agree with you ultimately.

Without these incentives, our city is askng private business the equivalent of cutting various groups a deal. How do our councillors make suggestions on these matters without offering anything to the developer???? They obviously don't understand basic economics.

Its like walking into a store and getting a better price because you make less... but if the private business owner isn't compensated, then it doesn't make sense. Its basic revenue - expenses = profit

I knew my comments would produce a reaction... but its still true that these groups ultimately do have an anti-private development element because they certainly aren't making any policy changes that I am aware of.

Changes have to be made to the public policy, not forcing private businesses to do things that make no logical sense. That is the difference between here and the Netherlands. Check out the Polder Model (not in terms of the labour market, but in terms consensus building) ... its light years ahead of the small minded methodology in HRM, on the parts of housing advocates, council, and private industry.

I'm soo down with affordable housing... if it is done correctly and benefits the working poor...

[Phalanx]

Re: 'Environmental bandwagon'
I think that's going a bit far as well. I consider myself pro-environment, and pro-development. I'd rather build 'up' than 'out'... sprawl is environmentally costly, inefficient, and just plain ugly. Arguing for the protection of urban greenspace is not necessarily the same as being anti-development. Those who do argue development on a purely environmental basis are in the minority.

[planarchy]

But we don't have these policies in place! There are no real incentives that I am aware of! I agree with you ultimately.

Its like walking into a store and getting a better price because you make less... but if the private business owner isn't compensated, then it doesn't make sense. Its basic revenue - expenses = profit


This was sort of my point. There are policies - such as social bonus zoning - that can be easily implemented. On the otherhand, models like those in the Netherlands, while attractive are built on a policy foundation that we won't see here in my life time.

But you are right, many of mandates of the advocacy groups are counter-productive and work against one another. In addition, social housing is a provincial mandate (with little or no leadership or vision), despite the fact that nearly any decisions affect cities. But this is where the city needs to step-up, and propose simple incentives (which in the case of social bonus zoning cost nothing) that start to force some of these groups to compromise. Right now absolutely no one is getting what they want.

Anyway another discussion. City Centre Atlantic is a great proposal, something different, interesting and would be a great addition to the area. As others have said, and arguments against are weak - blocking views, wind, blank wall, etc.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Re: 'Environmental bandwagon'
I think that's going a bit far as well. I consider myself pro-environment, and pro-development. I'd rather build 'up' than 'out'... sprawl is environmentally costly, inefficient, and just plain ugly. Arguing for the protection of urban greenspace is not necessarily the same as being anti-development. Those who do argue development on a purely environmental basis are in the minority.

I completely agree with you on those points and consider myself "pro-environment" (which seems redundant because I would hope everybody cares about the natural environment). I hate urban sprawl, I love public transportation, etc, etc. But I try to get all of the facts and not just blindly be for or against anything. (See those against the Bayers Rd widening, which ultimately improved public transportation.)


However, it would be ignorant to not believe that people will latch onto certain causes or be against certain things without knowing the issue(s). This is why I said bandwagon... and didn't just write "environmentalists"

I'm even suprised you responded to that and it underscores that people need to shake their perspectives on the world or at least take things lightly... I'm open minded to all of these groups opinions, but more often than not the arguments they make against various developments cannot be substantiated. However, most of these groups will not accept anything but their own dogmatic perspectives.

Nowhere did I make the argument that people who care about the environment are in the majority of those who are anti-development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Anyway another discussion. City Centre Atlantic is a great proposal, something different, interesting and would be a great addition to the area. As others have said, and arguments against are weak - blocking views, wind, blank wall, etc.

:cheers:

The density is great and its on major bus routes!

[planarchy]

As a last point in respect to social bonus zoning, these policies (or policies that allow for such incentives) already exist:

BILL NO. 181 (as passed, with amendments)

5 The Act is further amended by adding immediately after Section 254 the following Sections:

254A (1) Where a municipal planning strategy so provides, a land-use by-law may provide for incentive or bonus zoning agreements respecting the HRM by Design Downtown Plan Area.

as well:

(2) A public hearing is not required before approving an incentive or bonus zoning agreement or an amendment to an incentive or bonus zoning agreement

And taken from a HRMbyDesign doc:

Bonus Zoning Program
The bonus zoning program provides applicants for
development with an opportunity to achieve
additional height above that of the pre-bonus
maximum in exchange for a negotiated public benefit
to HRM. For example, a developer in a 21.5 m height
precinct could potentially achieve 30% more height
(up to a post-bonus maximum of 27.5 m) by
providing the municipality with one or more public
benefits described in the Plan, to be negotiated by the
Development Officer with input from the Design
Review Committee.


So, the question is, policies are in place - why aren't we using them? In theory, couldn't you obtain a development permit by proposing a shorter building, then once approved, throw in a childcare centre space on the ground floor and add 30% to the height without a public hearing? Ok, so maybe not this simple, but why isn't this ever mentioned by the city or developers?

[worldlyhaligonian]

As a last point in respect to social bonus zoning, these policies (or policies that allow for such incentives) already exist:

BILL NO. 181 (as passed, with amendments)

5 The Act is further amended by adding immediately after Section 254 the following Sections:

254A (1) Where a municipal planning strategy so provides, a land-use by-law may provide for incentive or bonus zoning agreements respecting the HRM by Design Downtown Plan Area.

as well:

(2) A public hearing is not required before approving an incentive or bonus zoning agreement or an amendment to an incentive or bonus zoning agreement

And taken from a HRMbyDesign doc:

Bonus Zoning Program
The bonus zoning program provides applicants for
development with an opportunity to achieve
additional height above that of the pre-bonus
maximum in exchange for a negotiated public benefit
to HRM. For example, a developer in a 21.5 m height
precinct could potentially achieve 30% more height
(up to a post-bonus maximum of 27.5 m) by
providing the municipality with one or more public
benefits described in the Plan, to be negotiated by the
Development Officer with input from the Design
Review Committee.


So, the question is, policies are in place - why aren't we using them? In theory, couldn't you obtain a development permit by proposing a shorter building, then once approved, throw in a childcare centre space on the ground floor and add 30% to the height without a public hearing? Ok, so maybe not this simple, but why isn't this ever mentioned by the city or developers?

Great find!! These should be e-mailed to developers. I like your point... if you proposed a 10 story tower and then incorporated the incentive requirements you could make it a 13 story tower without public hearing. (If this is how it works).

I wonder if the city centre atlantic developers are aware of this... it would give some badly needed height to this development.

[Dmajackson]

According to the Chronicle Herald the public hearing will be held at the Regional Council meeting on March 30th.

[halifaxboyns]

According to the Chronicle Herald the public hearing will be held at the Regional Council meeting on March 30th.

It listed on the City Council agenda for tomorrow:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/100330rcAgenda.html

[Dmajackson]

Who wants to start taking bets on how long before the Pacey's or HT step forward claiming this will be the end of historic Halifax as we know it? :haha:

[Keith P.]

Who wants to start taking bets on how long before the Pacey's or HT step forward claiming this will be the end of historic Halifax as we know it? :haha:

Hasn't happened yet -- but all the residents and speakers so far are saying this is the end of the world as we know it. Lawen said the residents would not even speak to him.

[Dmajackson]

All but the current speaker live in the building and she was the only positive one ... I guess its up to Council to decide upon what they've read and ignore the sunlight wind problems that the studies say were negliable.

[sdm]

i doubt this will have problems getting through.

How many council are there tonight? is there enough for the vote to be counted?

[Dmajackson]

I think Kelly just said the motion was carried ... can anybody confirm this?

[kph06]

Yeah, I think it was approved.

[Wishblade]

Yeah, I think it was approved.

I really hope it was. I didnt watch the meeting, but its a great project IMO, and the letters I read from local residents was completely baseless NIMBYism.

[kph06]

I felt most of the arguments were weak and horribly presented. The biggest issue seemed to be that if the current condo owners of Heritage Place aren't the original owners, they were not informed of the future development upon their purchase. However its not the developer's or councils problem if a buyer did not put in the research before making such an investment... a few councilors lost sight of that.

[someone123]

Aren't sellers sometimes liable if they don't disclose information to buyers? I wonder if it applies in this case.

Either way, this is not unusual infill. It's totally consistent with the character of the area, and it would make sense to approve it even if it had not already been planned for.

Here's one of the top-notch arguments that was posted in ANS:

"The very name Spring Garden Road evokes the concept of sunlight, tranquility, and beauty ... we have a duty to infuse this location with the image the name invokes."

No condos because a road nearby has the words "spring garden" in it. Right.

[Empire]

Aren't sellers sometimes liable if they don't disclose information to buyers? I wonder if it applies in this case.

.......................

The original purchase agreements for Heritage Way disclosed that a building could be built over the parking structure. I think that over twenty years and multiple turnovers this tid-bit got lost in the shuffle. In the end I would bet that a real estate agent would know nothing about it. You would think it is something that the condo association would have to be involved in though or be responsible for.

[halifaxboyns]

Oddly enough - one of the councillors is a distant relative and I have them on my facebook - I've emailed them to get confirmation of whether it was approved or not (since they would've voted on it!).

[spaustin]

The Herald reports it as approved in today's paper.

[halifaxboyns]

The Herald reports it as approved in today's paper.

Right on! Didn't see it in the digital version - since I'm out in Calgary. =)

[someone123]

Not totally sure what the appeals situation is like for this one but I'd expect it to be built pretty quickly once the developers get started since there's no foundation work involved.

I'm also hoping that we'll see a couple of proposals on Spring Garden Road itself soon. It's pretty successful but has shabby parts, particularly on the corner of South Park across from the Lord Nelson (DQ and empty hole) and on the City Centre Atlantic block. The little house there has been empty for years.

[Jonovision]

I have a feeling this one might wait a little until The Vic is well underway.

[Barrington south]

this is awsome


I love this project

I may consider buying in it


Spring Garden.....the new downtown

[halifaxboyns]

this is awsome


I love this project

I may consider buying in it


Spring Garden.....the new downtown

I was talking to my relative whose on council - apparently the debate and public hearing was quite interesting. You'll note I said public, unlike when I created the thread about the pubic gardens. My bad!

[Takeo]

Here's one of the top-notch arguments that was posted in ANS:

"The very name Spring Garden Road evokes the concept of sunlight, tranquility, and beauty ... we have a duty to infuse this location with the image the name invokes."

No condos because a road nearby has the words "spring garden" in it. Right.

Not to mention that the project is on the north side of the street. So it will block sunlight from Spring Garden for about 10 minutes at around sunset. LOL.

[Dmajackson]

I was talking to my relative whose on council - apparently the debate and public hearing was quite interesting. You'll note I said public, unlike when I created the thread about the pubic gardens. My bad!

I don't know how "interesting" it was considering all but one of the speakers lived in Heritage Way (the building name itself shows their opinions).

P.S. Someone123 the thread name should now be;

City Centre Atlantic | ~25m | 5 floors | Approved.

[Keith P.]

this is awsome

I love this project

I may consider buying in it



It's all rentals, no condos for sale.

[planarchy]

APRIL 1ST, 2010
Addition to City Centre Atlantic Passed
BY RACHEL CAROLINE DERRAH / Spacing Atlantic (http://spacingatlantic.ca/2010/04/01/addition-to-city-centre-atlantic-passed/)

http://spacingatlantic.ca/uploads/atlantic/city-centre-atlantic.png

HALIFAX - We Haligonians have a unique opportunity. We live in a city so small that, with a little effort, we can keep our finger on its pulse. Being an opportunity seeker, lately I've frequented city council meetings and public hearings. I wonder why so few others take this time to speak their mind and help shape our future? If you find yourself talking about city issues at the bar or over the kitchen table, I extend an invitation to you to come to city council on Tuesday nights. You can see the agenda for each week here. It does matter.

Upon arrival at city hall this Tuesday I was directed to the 'overflow room' (ie. Halifax Hall) as council chambers were standing-room-only for a hearing on a Cedar St development, which was passed by council. Tiny speakers on the tiny television made it nearly impossible to hear what was happening. However, I was pleased to see people engaging in the public hearing and also enjoyed being in the presence of a Garry Neill Kennedy exhibition in Halifax Hall.

As city staff assured me, I made it into council chambers intime for Dexel Development's proposal for a 5-storey rooftop addition to City Centre Atlantic (commonly known as Pete's Frootique). The development requires no demolition, nor does it impede on properties of heritage value. It will house 150 people in 95 condo-equivalent rental units.


Senior City Planner, Richard Harvey presented a powerpoint of the proposal in relation to policy requirements. Because this development was initiated before HRMbyDesign, it was "grandfathered-in" meaning it is subject to former policies in the Regional Plan. This development does, however, meet most requirements in HRMbyDesign.

Louie Lawen of Dexel then introduced himself and features of his work which has been mostly in the downtown core. Dexel was the first in Halifax to introduce a greywater system. The proposal in question would include this and other 'green' amenities such as 98% efficient natural gas and a locally manufactured A/V system.

Next, the floor opened to the public. Condo owners of the neighbouring property 'Heritage Way' were well organized in opposition. Though unhappy to see this proposal, it was disclosed upon their purchase of a condo unit that an addition would happen (as part of a plan agreed upon in 1991). Phase 1 involved the construction of the commercial property that Pete's Frootique resides in; Phase 2 was construction of Heritage Way; Phase 3 is the residential addition atop the commercial property.

Residents expressed their deep concerns that this addition will cast shadow on their condo homes and elevate wind speeds making their rooftop garden totally uninhabitable. Harvey confirmed the wind and shadow studies met standards required by HRM planning. A blank wall feature (see photo above) was another point of contention. This was countered by the argument that the proposed addition abuts the property line of another rooftop space that will someday be developed.

Traffic congestion and parking were mentioned by many of the Heritage Way residents. One speaker remarked that this proposal has her "living in terror" that traffic congestion will prohibit emergency vehicles from accessing her home.

Eight people spoke, including myself. I was the only non-condo-owning, non-neighbour and the only person who spoke in favour of the proposal. From the perspecitve of a young person who lives and works downtown, I expressed the need for more people living in the core to support local businesses and enhance our downtown's vitality.

For the sake of transparency, hearing people lobby for more and more parking spaces does spark me. It only propels the systemic mobility issues we face in HRM. Perhaps it is the responsibility of our municipal/provincial governments to provide a well functioning active transportation network - rather than the responsibility of each developer to provide extra parking. We need density downtown - parking spaces yield the opposite.

After the public's turn to speak, Council entered discussion. Councillors Uteck and Johns expressed frustration with current planning policies which sometimes limit their ability to be visionary and to best represent their constituents. This conversation surfaced the question: What is the role of a councillor?

[This reminded me of a conversation I had lately on the job description of councillors. In cities you love and admire, what is the job description of a councillor? There is still time to give input to the HRM for the Governance & Boundary Review.]

This public hearing lasted two hours. After much discussion, Council voted in favour of this development agreement for the residential addition to City Centre Atlantic.

[Jonovision]

Nice article! :cheers:

[Empire]

APRIL 1ST, 2010
Addition to City Centre Atlantic Passed
BY RACHEL CAROLINE DERRAH / Spacing Atlantic (http://spacingatlantic.ca/2010/04/01/addition-to-city-centre-atlantic-passed/)

http://spacingatlantic.ca/uploads/atlantic/city-centre-atlantic.png

HALIFAX - We Haligonians have a unique opportunity. We live in a city so small that, with a little effort, we can keep our finger on its pulse. Being an opportunity seeker, lately I've frequented city council meetings and public hearings. I wonder why so few others take this time to speak their mind and help shape our future? If you find yourself talking about city issues at the bar or over the kitchen table, I extend an invitation to you to come to city council on Tuesday nights. You can see the agenda for each week here. It does matter.....................................http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4777449&postcount=96
.

Great artile and very well written. Maybe Rachel would be interested in promoting a stadium?

[fenwick16]

Great artile and very well written. Maybe Rachel would be interested in promoting a stadium?

I think that to promote the stadium, a group will have to be set up (maybe Advocates for an HRM Stadium) that has some money to spend on advertising. I wouldn't mind contributing some, but I likely can't pay for all the advertising that would be required. Nevertheless, I will check advertising costs at the Chronicle Herald. Maybe a 1/8 page size ad (depends on the cost). I would much rather contribute money to a building fund - however I haven't seen much action in this direction from the HRM council.

[eastcoastal]

I think that to promote the stadium, a group will have to be set up (maybe Advocates for an HRM Stadium) that has some money to spend on advertising.
.. dare I suggest... Friends of the Stadium? LOL