YMCA/CBC Radio Redevelopment | ? m | 17 - 15 fl | Proposed [Archive] - Page 3

Empire

Sep 7, 2011, 1:33 AM

I'm a policy wonk, that is what I am. So while I am arguing one point, it doesn't mean I am sold on it. What struck me when looking at the max bonus heights is dropping from 215 to 70 feet from the Y to the CBC property seems out of hand.

I like the massing I see in the renderings looks un-intimidating, and the shadows cast in the morning will be largely onto Sackville and the roof of the Tara building next door, so that is not an issue.

My real concern was raised in another thread, I think Trillium, which is that we tend to have great renderings and big promises and then boring and cheap looking finishes in the end. I think a lot of the design guidance in HRMbD is actually very attractive, but I will believe it when I see it, and touch it, in final.

The new Y building could be really nice, but it could just end up being boring and cheap looking, depending on finish.

Even Falkland/Gottingen looked okay in the renderings, and it has to be one of the ugliest things in the city.

HRMxD doesn't go far enough to ensure a good design will be forthcoming. All of the policies can be followed and the result can still be an ugly building. The Paramount is an example of a cheap ugly building that would fit HRMxD policies nicely. It steps back from the street and the materials just pass inspection. I don't think anyone would suggest that the Paramount is an acceptable design fronting on The Public Gardens yet there is no mechanism to address cheap ugly buildings. HRMxD sold out when they capped the height in the Cogswell St. Interchange area to 20+/- storeys. This area clearly should have been rampart maximum. I think this area could have been left out of the plan for now instead of selling it short to get the plan passed.

Empire

Sep 7, 2011, 1:50 AM

:banana:

"Pulling up the ladder" is akin to policy of the NDP?

Give me one example.

The NDP promised they would not increase taxes if elected because their overall policy is to protect the "little guy". Once elected they "pulled up the ladder" and jacked up the HST by 2%. How many more examples do you need?

someone123

Sep 7, 2011, 2:02 AM

I think the NDP have some good policies and some bad policies***, but their biggest problems come from failing to appreciate implicit costs to those who don't benefit from a particular policy. The same thing goes for special interests in Halifax.

For example, unions say it's good for them to get sweetheart deals because it creates a strong middle class of people with good disposable income. The downside that they fail to mention is that everybody else must pay, including in many cases people who are much poorer than those who benefit. For example, somebody working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage must pay extra when they take the bus to cover the high wages of bus drivers. The difference between a Wal-Mart worker and bus driver is mostly that the bus driver is luckier, not that they are more skilled or put up with a less desirable job. It is very difficult to argue convincingly that the Wal-Mart worker should be subsidizing the bus driver, but this is the situation we have right now.

Similarly the special interests in Halifax want things like a well-located, quiet neighbourhood to themselves. The downside to everybody else is that this increases sprawl and reduces the housing supply. Maybe 1,000 people would have moved into highrises nearby, but when the highrises are quashed those people have to find someplace less desirable to live. Some of the 1,000 will probably end up out in the suburbs, clogging streets and wasting their own time and energy commuting every day. This weighs heavily against the benefit to the few dozen homeowners who would get more "privacy" or a quieter street.

If this development fails because of special interests then the city will lose out on balance. The benefits of urban infill and public amenities heavily outweigh the vague prescriptions for what ought to be built downtown and the complaints about lost views from people who were never promised those views in the first place. If they wanted views they should have bought a street-facing condo.

***I should clarify that I was talking about the federal NDP. I think people in the thread are talking about the provincial NDP.. I don't really know enough about them to comment.

RyeJay

Sep 7, 2011, 2:10 AM

The NDP promised they would not increase taxes if elected because their overall policy is to protect the "little guy". Once elected they "pulled up the ladder" and jacked up the HST by 2%. How many more examples do you need?

A uniformly applied tax--to the entire public-- isn't pulling up the ladder, I dare say. Instead of the HST hike, perhaps the NDP should have said no to things such as the Nova Centre?

(I joke.)

RyeJay

Sep 7, 2011, 2:21 AM

[QUOTE=someone123;5402711]I think the NDP have some good policies and some bad policies***, but their biggest problems come from failing to appreciate implicit costs to those who don't benefit from a particular policy. The same thing goes for special interests in Halifax.

For example, unions say it's good for them to get sweetheart deals because it creates a strong middle class of people with good disposable income. The downside that they fail to mention is that everybody else must pay, including in many cases people who are much poorer than those who benefit. For example, somebody working at Wal-Mart for minimum wage must pay extra when they take the bus to cover the high wages of bus drivers. The difference between a Wal-Mart worker and bus driver is mostly that the bus driver is luckier, not that they are more skilled or put up with a less desirable job. It is very difficult to argue convincingly that the Wal-Mart worker should be subsidizing the bus driver, but this is the situation we have right now.
QUOTE]

And this debate quickly branches into debates about why wages must go up, about the cost of living going up, etc...

I agree unions can be EXTREMELY annoying, mainly for corporations, but also for workers of corporations where unions don't exist.

This topic frustrates me because it seems as though there isn't a solution to make everyone happy--or even mostly everyone.

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 7, 2011, 1:10 PM

We are all way off topic now.

One thing is certain, this project will have the usual opponents + a few new people in the nearby condo buildings.

Overall, this project is a much better use of the site (with respect to the corner, land use, etc) and will provide significantly better facilities than the current YMCA.

This being said, haters gonna hate.

halifaxboyns

Sep 7, 2011, 2:53 PM

Considering the adjacent context, I can't see how this wouldn't get support by the majority of council. Even if it doesn't and some how fails, I think they'd have a great position to take an appeal to the URB. But I don't think this will fail.

Dmajackson

Sep 16, 2011, 12:27 AM

planarchy

Sep 16, 2011, 12:42 AM

Not surprisingly the proposal was panned by Parks Canada (which maintains the Citadel).

Brief Form (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16655ProposedHeightAmendmentBrief.pdf)
Detailed Form (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/1655ProposedHeightAmendmentImpactAssessmentHalifaxCitadel.pdf)

Wow. This is an insane response from Parks Canada. Completely ignoring municipal issues and the massive impact - positive and negative - that they have on Halifax, then presenting this? I think its time to expropriate the Citadel from the Feds.

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 12:46 AM

Not surprisingly the proposal was panned by Parks Canada (which maintains the Citadel).

Brief Form (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16655ProposedHeightAmendmentBrief.pdf)
Detailed Form (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/1655ProposedHeightAmendmentImpactAssessmentHalifaxCitadel.pdf)

When they take pictures from the hill, I wish they'd take them from the top of the hill...not half way up the grass.

fenwick16

Sep 16, 2011, 12:47 AM

I think that the YMCA/CBC development will greatly enhance the southern view from the Citadel; especially at night, that view will be awe-inspiring (no sarcasm intended).

someone123

Sep 16, 2011, 1:28 AM

Meh, Parks Canada will be ignored by everybody but the STV types. They have no incentive to give a balanced opinion; all they care about is the Citadel. It's up to councillors to have a sense of perspective and realize that the "negative" impact is minimal while the benefits of infill in the core are enormous.

Unfortunate that tax dollars were spent on this, but at least we got a cool rendering out of it:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9929/screenshotkr.png

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 16, 2011, 2:51 AM

I'm convinced there is someone at Parks Canada who is a member of an anti-development group, it seems odd that they would be so involved when they weren't against other developments in the vicinity.

Also, that rendering looks amazing!

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 3:37 AM

Also, that rendering looks amazing!

I agree :)

halifaxboyns

Sep 16, 2011, 5:27 AM

I've never seen that rendering before! Where did you find it?

eastcoastal

Sep 16, 2011, 11:16 AM

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9929/screenshotkr.png
Is the rendering supposed to convince us this is a bad idea? I see the strengthening of the urban edge next to a public park. Makes sense to me.

beyeas

Sep 16, 2011, 12:32 PM

It is TOO TALL... how will I be able to see the historic views of Cowie Hill?!?! LOL

Rendering looks great... I like the step down as it goes towards Sackville.

Jstaleness

Sep 16, 2011, 12:37 PM

That is just a rendering I know, but that's not the final design is it?

resetcbu1

Sep 16, 2011, 12:46 PM

You can see just as much of the gardens as before , the only thinh it would block is the view of other buildings...

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 16, 2011, 2:43 PM

Is the rendering supposed to convince us this is a bad idea? I see the strengthening of the urban edge next to a public park. Makes sense to me.

Totally does!

I think their (Parks Canada et al.) sentiment is anti-urbanity though, height and the sense of being in a city are to be avoided at all costs.

This development not only provides needed downtown residential and recreational infrastructure, its attractive. However, the merit of it is thrown out the window by those who don't want to see tall buildings, plain and simple.

The way the parks Canada document was written looks like a university history paper... it wouldn't suprise me if its written by an HT member who works for Parks Canada.

Can anybody find out who the Parks Canada staff are and cross reference them with the anti-development group membership?

ScovaNotian

Sep 16, 2011, 2:48 PM

Can anybody find out who the Parks Canada staff are and cross reference them with the anti-development group membership?
Obviously this doesn't prove anything, but David A. Sutherland is the Nova Scotia representative on Parks Canada's Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and a member of the Heritage Trust: http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/comm-board/membres-members.aspx .

halifaxboyns

Sep 16, 2011, 6:52 PM

Obviously this doesn't prove anything, but David A. Sutherland is the Nova Scotia representative on Parks Canada's Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and a member of the Heritage Trust: http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/comm-board/membres-members.aspx .

I wouldn't really call that a conflict of interest though. Parks Canada is about promoting the heritage of their importance sites - I would expect their members to be involved in heritage.

Their opinion of the fort though isn't making sense to me though. They have the viewplanes and the band a height restrictions along Brunswick Street - what more do they want? Do they feel that because they are a prominant site in the core they should be even more special? My answer to that would be no. Besides, who really goes to the back of citadell hill to look at the view anyway? Not a heck of a lot, if any.

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 16, 2011, 7:10 PM

This building isn't going to be on the citadel grounds and there are tall buildings all around the site. The proximity issue really gets me... in cities like London, they have alot of resistance, but then again, much larger developments proposed and much richer history.

Did Parks Canada protest the Martello? This seems really fishy to me.

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 16, 2011, 7:12 PM

I wouldn't really call that a conflict of interest though. Parks Canada is about promoting the heritage of their importance sites - I would expect their members to be involved in heritage.

Is promoting heritage the same as stopping development? I would think heritage promotion would be more focused on restoration of existing heritage structures, not preventing new structures in the vicinity to be built... technically the heritage structures are developments from their era...

someone123

Sep 16, 2011, 7:14 PM

Did Parks Canada protest the Martello? This seems really fishy to me.

The Martello and Paramount were permitted based on old development agreements, so there was no approval process right before they were built.

Parks Canada did oppose the Midtown hotel proposal, if I remember correctly. I believe that they'd oppose any nearby highrise. They might have a problem with the Citadel Hotel redevelopment as well. They never seem to have much of an impact though.

It is true that these groups are pretty incestuous -- you find that somebody's on the HT and then STV and Parks Canada and on and on. I don't think it's "corrupt", but it's something to bear in mind. The opinions of these groups can be set based on the opinions of a few individuals. They do not represent broad-based support by any stretch.

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 7:31 PM

Their opinion of the fort though isn't making sense to me though. They have the viewplanes and the band a height restrictions along Brunswick Street - what more do they want?

...the demolition of downtown?

It's so ironic that the aspect of the hill tourists appreciate most is the surrounding cityscape.

Citadel Hill ITSELF is a minor, yes...minor military fortification.

I love history, but these warped opinions of the hill's extreme importance is such a strong hindrance to the prosperity of our downtown.

Halifax DOES NOT belong to Citadel Hill damnit.

someone123

Sep 16, 2011, 7:46 PM

I love history, but these warped opinions of the hill's extreme importance is such a strong hindrance to the prosperity of our downtown.

I agree.

The Citadel is interesting, as is the clock tower. The views are nice and I'm happy we have them.

What I don't like is the dogma. The Citadel is considered sacrosanct because it's "heritage". That's not a real reason for having it. The real reasons are that it's fun to visit, unusual, and tells us about our past. If you look at it in a practical way you also see that it could be much better than it is. Right now it's not used much despite being prime land. Why don't we hold more events there? Why don't we build things on the hill or into the hill? The fact that it is forced to remain as it was when it was used for a different purpose pretty much guarantees that it will be less than optimal today.

I'd love to see creative reuse of the Citadel. For example, the interior parade square could be used more frequently as a performance venue. The hill itself could be used for all kinds of things -- the new public library could have been built into the hill along Sackville Street. It could have had a green roof open to the public with minimal impact to views.

But we must not think of such things!

Keith P.

Sep 16, 2011, 9:17 PM

eastcoastal

Sep 16, 2011, 9:33 PM

Former Mayor Ron Wallace proposed tunneling under the Citadel from Brunswick St. to create an invisible downtown parking garage. He was mocked at the time - but I always thought the idea was brilliant. Might actually make some use of the thing.

Hear hear. I think parking under the hill would be a great use of an otherwise pretty blank (functionality-wise) spot smack in the centre of town.

eastcoastal

Sep 16, 2011, 9:34 PM

I think their (Parks Canada et al.) sentiment is anti-urbanity though, height and the sense of being in a city are to be avoided at all costs.

Insanity. The history of that hill is part of WHY there is an urban (ish) city here now.

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 9:42 PM

Why don't we hold more events there? Why don't we build things on the hill or into the hill? The fact that it is forced to remain as it was when it was used for a different purpose pretty much guarantees that it will be less than optimal today.

I'd love to see creative reuse of the Citadel. For example, the interior parade square could be used more frequently as a performance venue. The hill itself could be used for all kinds of things -- the new public library could have been built into the hill along Sackville Street. It could have had a green roof open to the public with minimal impact to views.

But we must not think of such things!

I can see a possibility of having more events there. I, for one, would love to see our education system arrange for more student field trips to the fortification. I know so many Maritimers that have yet to see the Citadel, which is crazy!!

I think the desire for additional construction on the hill is reeeeeeally pushing it. I'm actually very in favour of preserving the historical site as is; I simply just want the Citadel-lovers to leave the downtown alone. Let Halifax grow. Let Halifax urbanize.

And P.S.: more people living downtown translates into more people using the hill. Morning jogs on the Citadel are amazing. And you can't find a better place to sunbathe--though don't look at me for proof of that, since my middle name might as well be Casper.

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 9:49 PM

Insanity. The history of that hill is part of WHY there is an urban (ish) city here now.

Not insanity, but perhaps slightly unreasonable.

Yes, I agree with you in that the hill is part of the reason why Halifax exists. BUT...we should remember that the Citadel is a later addition to Halifax's Defence System. There were already buildings established downtown before this fortification was even considered. If it were never built, my thoughts are that the downtown would be much (much, much, much) more developed. Instead, Halifax has mostly thrown its development in the form of sprawl...

RyeJay

Sep 16, 2011, 9:54 PM

Former Mayor Ron Wallace proposed tunneling under the Citadel from Brunswick St. to create an invisible downtown parking garage. He was mocked at the time - but I always thought the idea was brilliant. Might actually make some use of the thing.

It would be a very smart use of space.
:)

And it wouldn't influence the fortification at all!

I love underground developments!

someone123

Sep 16, 2011, 10:12 PM

I think the desire for additional construction on the hill is reeeeeeally pushing it.

It's only "pushing it" because a small group of unimaginative people says it is. Don't listen to them. They've been setting the agenda for so long that most don't even realize how much of it is arbitrary and wrong.

We should let more creative people work on improving the city instead of turning heritage into a straightjacket. I bet architects and students would come up with amazing ideas for improving the Citadel for free if there was an open design competition.

halifaxboyns

Sep 16, 2011, 10:41 PM

It's only "pushing it" because a small group of unimaginative people says it is. Don't listen to them. They've been setting the agenda for so long that most don't even realize how much of it is arbitrary and wrong.

We should let more creative people work on improving the city instead of turning heritage into a straightjacket. I bet architects and students would come up with amazing ideas for improving the Citadel for free if there was an open design competition.

That's an interesting idea...
It's hard to say whether the fort not being in Halifax would've influenced a better downtown development...no one can say for certain. I've always felt that the concerts on the hill have been pretty cool, I've always liked those. So putting a library there, just wouldn't be the same for me. But at least it's thinking outside the box. Personally, I'd like to see some more festivals use that space for concerts or whatever.

I remember when Ron Wallace thought about parking under the hill. I didn't like the idea because I figured it would be expensive, but taking that aside I was open to the idea.

What I would be opposed too is extending the band A restrictions (which the fort wanted) along Sackville Street. It is just too late - there is already an existing context and I suspect the submission of the Citadell will just be wrapped up into the NIMBY catagory. If they go after the citadell hotel, I'd be disappointed. I think the challenge for them is to show that the views being protected are even really used - if they aren't, why keep them protected?

But I really don't see a lot of the area around the citadell being the subject of a lot of redevelopment; other than the YMCA and the Citadell Hotel. I just can't seen any of the existing development being removed to put up something bigger.

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 17, 2011, 1:14 AM

...the demolition of downtown?

It's so ironic that the aspect of the hill tourists appreciate most is the surrounding cityscape.

Citadel Hill ITSELF is a minor, yes...minor military fortification.

I love history, but these warped opinions of the hill's extreme importance is such a strong hindrance to the prosperity of our downtown.

Halifax DOES NOT belong to Citadel Hill damnit.

Yeah, exactly! I see skyline shots with the citadel featured, and the so called harm to tourism??? The purdy's wharf image is used on almost everything Halifax!

The shots of the cityscape with the citadel in the foreground wouldn't look so impressive without our CBD!

worldlyhaligonian

Sep 17, 2011, 1:16 AM

Insanity. The history of that hill is part of WHY there is an urban (ish) city here now.

Its weird, because if they knew their history, they'd realize this was a booming place back in the day that they were trying to transform into a New York or Boston of the era.

I'd love to see Halifax retain its history and then move forward in the vision of its founders. No more crap faux heritage, lets respect and restore what we have left and then build around it!

RyeJay

Sep 17, 2011, 3:42 AM

I'd love to see Halifax retain its history and then move forward in the vision of its founders.

The shipbuilding contract would be the fuel to move this vision forward.

Empire

Sep 17, 2011, 11:10 AM

There should be some sort of event, festival, concert, market etc. every Sat. inside the fort on Citadel Hill. Because Parks Canada soaks people for an entry fee no one from the city goes unless they are taking visitors. I think the fact that this National Historic Site is in the middle of downtown, holds so much history and has such a stranglehold on the development potential of the surrounding area the entry fee should be waived. It's time for the hill to give back to the citizens! Ironically, I think that if more use of the hill were to be promoted the STV crowd would object....."TOO BUSY"

We need to capture the HILL!

Thousands of parking spaces could be created under the commons. There could even be an underground city like Montreal & Toronto. Development would be easier than scooping out under the hill. You could remove the field build layers of underground parking/retail and then replace the grass or leave the grass and tunnel below it. This could be the HRM 'BIG DIG'.

There are 1300 parking spaces under the Boston Common so there is no reason why it couldn't be done here.

Boston Common Parking...an ideal choice
http://www.mccahome.com/bcg.html

The Boston Common & Halifax Common are of similar size:

Halifax.........................................................................Boston
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/BostonHFXCommons.jpg

Cogswell St. could be used as the entrance and exit to the u/g parking garage. Cogswell St. would go down into parking and be used exclusively for the gargage access. There would be entry/exit points (existing) at Robie and North Park.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/CommonsParking-1.jpg

Takeo

Sep 17, 2011, 2:19 PM

eastcoastal

Sep 17, 2011, 4:18 PM

I don't see that being successful. Underground retail is only successful because it's always in the basements of huge bank towers with their massive populations of workers along with being tied in with major transit hubs and above ground shopping centres. Who would want to go shopping under the commons? People don't even go shopping on Barrington street and that's above ground.

Agreed - underground retail just sounds like a bad idea, unless it's supported by a SIGNIFICANT network of subway stations.

musicman

Sep 18, 2011, 1:09 AM

More shows in the citadel would be great but..... With time constraints and the lack of a loading area it becomes very dificult and cost prohibitive to do shows inside the citadel.

halifaxboyns

Sep 18, 2011, 7:06 AM

Agreed - underground retail just sounds like a bad idea, unless it's supported by a SIGNIFICANT network of subway stations.

Exactly what I was thinking. If you look at Montreal as an example - virtually all of the underground malls are attached to subway stations (from what I recall, it's been a while since I've been in Montreal). So the design of the station forces people to walk past the retail, thus exposing people to the retail 'tricks of the trade' - thus creating a shopping opportunity. Since so many use the subway, you have a good level of customers 7 days a week.

Takeo is also correct in pointing out the office worker side of things. Scotia Square is exactly that - the shops really cater to the office workers from Monday to Friday. Without the weekend shifts of the call centres and a few other things open on the weekends - there would be no reason to be open. The place is virtually dead on weekends, but I would guess that the stores make so much money on the weekdays that the break even or loss they take on the weekends is offset.

someone123

Sep 18, 2011, 7:22 AM

Empire

Sep 18, 2011, 1:56 PM

I don't see that being successful. Underground retail is only successful because it's always in the basements of huge bank towers with their massive populations of workers along with being tied in with major transit hubs and above ground shopping centres. Who would want to go shopping under the commons? People don't even go shopping on Barrington street and that's above ground.

Admittedly, retail would be a huge stretch without the population base to support it. There were preliminary talks about closing Cogswell St. through the commons. There may be an opportunity for u/g parking if the feds had infrastructure money available. A constant shuttle could run downtown and do the hospital/university loop.

beyeas

Sep 19, 2011, 4:43 PM

I don't think there's enough demand for retail under the Commons because it is not strategically located, but I do think there should be more stuff there. The skating oval is I guess one example of that. It seems to have been hastily thrown up, but it is an improvement in the sense that it gets more use than the grass that preceded it.

A while ago there was a plan to overhaul the Commons that included, for example, a "gateway" to the North Common from the downtown but it seems to have been abandoned.

I think that the Friends of the Common group should visit the Boston Common (aka THE Common) and see what a well used vibrant common space is actually like. Frog pond. Ice cream stands. Public Art. Shaded spaces. Not a big giant empty space which is open and grassed for the same of being open and grassed.

RyeJay

Sep 19, 2011, 5:03 PM

I think that the Friends of the Common group should visit the Boston Common (aka THE Common) and see what a well used vibrant common space is actually like. Frog pond. Ice cream stands. Public Art. Shaded spaces. Not a big giant empty space which is open and grassed for the same of being open and grassed.

Hear, hear!

Compared to the Boston Common, the Halifax Common looks like an abandoned dump.

Empire

Sep 19, 2011, 5:09 PM

I think that the Friends of the Common group should visit the Boston Common (aka THE Common) and see what a well used vibrant common space is actually like. Frog pond. Ice cream stands. Public Art. Shaded spaces. Not a big giant empty space which is open and grassed for the same of being open and grassed.

Agreed, the Halifax Common for the most part is abandoned with a run down fountain.

There is a plan for more landscaping etc. on the common:
http://www.halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/HalifaxNorthCommon_PowerPointPresentation_000.pdf

JET

Sep 19, 2011, 5:54 PM

I would be interested to know how it was designated to be the baseball Common; talk about special interest group. :shrug:

someone123

Sep 19, 2011, 6:14 PM

There is a plan for more landscaping etc. on the common:
http://www.halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/HalifaxNorthCommon_PowerPointPresentation_000.pdf

Funny how the plan contains a list of improvements to be implemented in 2010. These dates must be a joke when they are written.

It seems pretty reasonable though. Start with a small budget and simple fixes that provide lots of value. More trees, entrance plazas, seating areas, and improved pathways would look much nicer and would break up the giant empty space. In the future hopefully there will be more discussion about amenities.

I agree that it's crazy how the city ended up with acres and acres of baseball diamonds. My guess is that was a kind of compromise between the Friends of the Abstract, Politically-charged Wasteland and the many people who wanted something there.

Jstaleness

Sep 19, 2011, 6:57 PM

There is another thread here dedicated to the common improvements. It's been awhile since anyone has posted in there.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=177811

Empire

Sep 19, 2011, 9:16 PM

Funny how the plan contains a list of improvements to be implemented in 2010. These dates must be a joke when they are written.

It seems pretty reasonable though. Start with a small budget and simple fixes that provide lots of value. More trees, entrance plazas, seating areas, and improved pathways would look much nicer and would break up the giant empty space. In the future hopefully there will be more discussion about amenities.

I agree that it's crazy how the city ended up with acres and acres of baseball diamonds. My guess is that was a kind of compromise between the Friends of the Abstract, Politically-charged Wasteland and the many people who wanted something there.

There should be a dedicated space for baseball diamonds. Next to the all weather fields in Burnside would work. Build 1/2doz. baseball diamonds with a couple of hundred cheap seats each. This would go nicely with the new beach volleyball courts. Most people have to drive from the burbs to play a beerbelly / beer league hack softball game on the commons anyway. Leave one diamond, beef up the seats and turn the rest into a Boston Common type park..

someone123

Sep 19, 2011, 9:44 PM

There should be a dedicated space for baseball diamonds. Next to the all weather fields in Burnside would work. Build 1/2doz. baseball diamonds with a couple of hundred cheap seats each. This would go nicely with the new beach volleyball courts. Most people have to drive from the burbs to play a beerbelly / beer league hack softball game on the commons anyway. Leave one diamond, beef up the seats and turn the rest into a Boston Common type park..

I agree. Now that I think of it I am guessing the diamonds are there because they were built to be used temporarily for the 1967 Canada Summer Games. Looking on Google Maps, there is one diamond south of Cogswell with bleachers -- an easy solution is to keep that one and then get rid of the other 7 or so (?!).

Part of the problem here is that this land was originally reserved for a use that is today totally irrelevant. I don't believe there's actually much demand for this much green space in this particular part of a small city, but because green space has become a political cause people will fight to preserve it regardless of whether or not it is useful. Actually undeveloped green space is not very valuable in NS because there is a lot of it.

Keith P.

Sep 19, 2011, 11:58 PM

Funny how the plan contains a list of improvements to be implemented in 2010. These dates must be a joke when they are written.

I think the plans got derailed by the trendy demand for the skating oval. All bets were off when that got made permanent.

halifaxboyns

Sep 20, 2011, 2:04 AM

I think the plans got derailed by the trendy demand for the skating oval. All bets were off when that got made permanent.

I would hope that council would direct the plan to go back to administration for an update in light of the oval. I'm sure they could retain many elements of the plan without too much change; but then again I'm not a landscape architect.

eastcoastal

Sep 20, 2011, 8:54 PM

I think the plans got derailed by the trendy demand for the skating oval. All bets were off when that got made permanent.

Skating oval, good. Skating oval in/around downtown, better. Skating oval hastily shoved onto the North Common without a holistic site plan, not-so-good. Just because people loved it (and rightly so), doesn't mean that it was in an ideal location for a permanent fixture.

Waye Mason

Sep 20, 2011, 9:22 PM

Those ball diamonds are packed and over booked all summer, every evening, all weekend. They also have Cricket on the south west corner of the North Common.

So the North Common has softball/baseball, cricket, speed skating.

The Central Common has the Canada Games ball diamond, the football practice field, the small pool, the wading pool, the playground, the Pavillion, and the skate bowl.

That is a lot of stuff, I feel. 67,000 people live on the peninsula. Sports fields need to go somewhere. Like I said, they are all booked. You'ed need to put ball fields nearby for current users if you shut them down.

I hope someday the Common plan is funded, the lack of quality street furniture, lighting, landscaping, tree and shrub renewal, etc really a waste.

halifaxboyns

Sep 20, 2011, 9:39 PM

Skating oval, good. Skating oval in/around downtown, better. Skating oval hastily shoved onto the North Common without a holistic site plan, not-so-good. Just because people loved it (and rightly so), doesn't mean that it was in an ideal location for a permanent fixture.

One thing I love about Calgary and Edmonton is that we both have public rinks built into plazas as part of our City Hall's. In the case of Calgary, the olympic plaza was a key feature as part of the 88 games (the awards were held there). But it makes a great gathering space and considering our downtown is quite empty on weekends, I can skate in ease!

Edmonton's Skating space is part of Winston Churhill Square, and directly in front of their city hall. In both cases, the skating area in the summer becomes a wading pool/fountain.

halifaxboyns

Sep 20, 2011, 9:41 PM

I hope someday the Common plan is funded, the lack of quality street furniture, lighting, landscaping, tree and shrub renewal, etc really a waste.

Perhaps a way to fund it and leverage more density from development is through a system like HbD where the as of right height near the commons is quite low and then as you want more height, one option is to provide funds going into the implementation of the commons master plan? Develop a formula based on the number of units...

That could leverage a good chunk of money per development - especially if it was an option you couldn't avoid. Meaning; if you want to go above say 50'; the first step is to pay into this fund and then you could go to 125' for example?

someone123

Sep 20, 2011, 9:52 PM

Those ball diamonds are packed and over booked all summer, every evening, all weekend.

I'm not sure this is a good argument for having tons of diamonds. If a ball diamond were built downtown it would probably be booked too, but it's hard to argue that it would be a good use of the land.

To answer the question of whether or not the ball diamonds make sense we have to first ask what is the percentage of people who play baseball on the Commons out of the total number of people who might use the Commons. My guess is that we have a disproportionately large amount of land dedicated to a small minority.

I think most complaints are about the North Common specifically. The Central Common already has a good mix of stuff. Note that each use only takes up a small percentage of the whole and that areas like the skate park or playground probably get a lot more use per acre than the North Common ball diamonds.

But in any case I think that finding the best uses would take some fiddling over time. Improvements to the paths, some little plazas, benches, new trees, etc. can be done immediately and are affordable.

planarchy

Oct 1, 2011, 1:31 PM

I don't think this has its own thread...

CBC’s inviting reno
New building will boost public access
By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Sat, Oct 1 - 4:55 AM

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_xlarge/stories/photos/10-01-11_CBCElevation_0.jpg

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_xlarge/stories/photos/10-01-11_CBCExteriorDayFinal_0.jpg

A multimillion-dollar makeover of the CBC building on Bell Road in Halifax will add a gleaming new presence to the streetscape and open up a massive new production area for public viewing.

"When people are in town we want to be a destination that doesn’t require a special invitation," Andrew Cochran, the broadcaster’s managing director for the Maritimes, said Friday in an interview.

One portal into the renovated and enlarged complex will be a window bordered in red that will light up when a live broadcast is underway, sending an invitation to people at street level that they are welcome to view the action. Increased public access will also be provided in the main foyer.

The innovative design of the CBC building — by WHW Architects Inc. in Halifax — will get its first public viewing today at 75th anniversary celebrations for the public broadcaster at the Bell Road site.

"All Halifax operations will be under one roof for the first time," said Cochran.

He said the challenge for architects was to provide some sort of nod to the past — including the landmark CBC Radio building at Sackville and South Park streets — and to reflect the evolving role of the broadcaster moving into the future.

There are some white motifs featured in the gleaming exterior of the new structure, as a nod to the CBC Radio building that will be vacated when the renovated and enlarged structure on Bell Road is ready for occupancy early in the summer of 2014.

A tender call for a builder is expected to go out late in December and staff in the Bell Road building will be relocated to the CBC Radio building when renovations begin next summer.

All radio, television and online operations will be consolidated into one large production space, which will actually occupy the space where the parking lot is currently located.

This will put about 170 staff in one central location, but this number does not include assorted freelance broadcasters and independent producers who will be using the facility.

"The availability of parking will be affected and we’re going to be working on that with staff," said Cochran.

The completed project will enlarge the current 57,000-square-foot building to about 90,000 square feet. CBC has not released a cost estimate on the overhaul of its Halifax broadcast centre. CBC is reducing its environmental footprint at Bell Road with natural light to supplement room lighting, and energy efficient heating and cooling systems and LED lighting systems.

The CBC Radio building — noted for its art deco-like styling — will likely come down as part of a redevelopment of that portion of South Park Street that includes the existing YMCA building site.

fenwick16

Oct 1, 2011, 2:41 PM

It looks very impressive, in my opinion. It is good to see that they are partially recreating the look of the CBC radio building. Here is a Google Map link to the location - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=1840+Bell+Road,+Halifax,+ns&hl=en&ll=44.646468,-63.586968&spn=0.003233,0.008256&hnear=1840+Bell+Rd,+Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&gl=ca&sqi=2&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6

RyeJay

Oct 1, 2011, 8:56 PM

Phalanx

Oct 2, 2011, 5:02 AM

I like the look of the new building, but I'll miss the trees along that section of Bell Rd. I'm assuming that with so much emphasis on that side of the building, and with so much work to be done, that they'll be cut.

coolmillion

Nov 9, 2011, 1:25 PM

There are updated renderings for the YMCA/CBC redevelopment. I'm not sure if this has been posted yet...
I love that they keep the unique form of the CBC building, actually enhancing its lines, and the step back and massing seem to work really well. My only hesitation is that it's difficult to tell where the windows are on the upper towers, apart from the balconies. Otherwise, looks great!

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16655RenderingsforProposalUpdated.pdf

coolmillion

Nov 9, 2011, 1:40 PM

Keith P.

Nov 9, 2011, 2:54 PM

That's a pretty decent design. I hope they keep the cladding actually finished in a white material and not just bare concrete.

halifaxboyns

Nov 9, 2011, 7:22 PM

Not bad - not bad. Can't wait to see the public hearing - the information meeting was a gong show. Nearly lost it in my seat when people kept saying it was 'unholy' to have a PIM on the Thursday before the easter weekend...as a coworker of mine would say, 'oh cry me a river'.

someone123

Nov 9, 2011, 8:55 PM

Nearly lost it in my seat when people kept saying it was 'unholy' to have a PIM on the Thursday before the easter weekend.

Those meetings seem to attract a very special crowd. I think they can be useful but they need to be taken with a grain of salt -- the average attendee is not the average local resident.

fenwick16

Nov 10, 2011, 3:55 AM

I should add, the proposal to amend the MPS and LUB is going to the design review committee. The proposal requires an increase in the height allowance on the CBC site from 23 to 49 metres. Since this height limit was established due to proximity to the Citadel, the changes will likely be challenged by the HT but perhaps not until the proposal goes to public hearing.

Read all about it here:
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case16655Details.html

The design review committee voted 5-3 against the changes in the height limits according to allnovascotia.com. However, the vote is not binding and Council can still vote to proceed to a public hearing.

kph06

Nov 10, 2011, 10:47 AM

Alan Parish chaired the meeting and voted against it, wasn't he one the most vocal opponents as he lives in the Martello and would lose part of his view? If so that would be a blatant conflict of interest and he shouldn't have been involved.

JET

Nov 10, 2011, 12:55 PM

kph06

Nov 10, 2011, 12:59 PM

I thought that a chair could only vote to break a tie?

Allnovascotia says he was one of the five against.

Keith P.

Nov 10, 2011, 2:32 PM

Isn't Parish also a former head of the Heritage Trust?

I know this committee is part of the HRM By Design dogma, but it really seems to be a 5th wheel and serves no useful purpose.

RyeJay

Nov 10, 2011, 2:41 PM

Council can still vote to proceed to a public hearing.

When do you except this?

someone123

Nov 10, 2011, 5:32 PM

Isn't Parish also a former head of the Heritage Trust?

I know this committee is part of the HRM By Design dogma, but it really seems to be a 5th wheel and serves no useful purpose.

I also thought he was, and I agree. It is yet another pointless committee because it has no power and as far as I can tell requires no particular qualifications. These things are of course magnets for special interests.

fenwick16

Nov 10, 2011, 10:39 PM

When do you except this?

The allnovascotia.com story indicated that it could be held within three weeks time.

halifaxboyns

Nov 10, 2011, 11:26 PM

Advisory committees can be a double edged sword. If their goals, objectives, boundairies and powers are well defined in their terms of reference and they have a good committee chair who can keep the committee focused (and understand's their role) - then they can be great. I know a lot of cities have design review committees which are often advisory; some better than others. I've never dealt with the one here in Calgary, but I hear it can go either way depending on the application.

When you have a committee that is poorly defined or the chair doesn't understand his role or that of the committee, I find their advice can be (frankly) useless. It's been my experience that sometimes people volunteer for these things but never really get the direction they need to do what is expected; so then they have to feel their way through and it's a stuggle.

In this case though, I'm sensing some clear bias - which should've been something that was dealt with in the terms of reference and if I were a councillor, I would call that out at council (that the chair should've stepped out). We had planning commission here in Calgary today and they are very strict about that - if you have anything to do with an application or could be conceived to have had involvement, you leave and let the commission deal with it.

eastcoastal

Nov 11, 2011, 12:43 AM

I also thought he was, and I agree. It is yet another pointless committee because it has no power and as far as I can tell requires no particular qualifications. These things are of course magnets for special interests.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's totally advisory. Don't they approve/or not applications through HRMbyDesign? This is an instance where someone is asking to change the content of HRMbyDesign (as opposed to putting an application through the process), so the committee is reviewing the item and providing advice to council.

As for the qualifications... I don't know of any tests the committee members have to take. I think a certain percentage of them have to be "professionals," so at least they will have had to undergo the education, training, experience, and oaths to become such.

resetcbu1

Nov 11, 2011, 1:14 AM

eastcoastal

Nov 13, 2011, 12:47 AM

Ha , what B.S ....."Profesionals", why do we need profesionals ? Why not average , blue collar people? Seems to me that a city like Halifax is comprised of mostly blue collar, average , hard working people. these comitees should be chosen at random and no volunteers , comprised of normal people and not those who have been involved in any type of special intrest group, IMO.

I think they include "normal" people too. This panel in particular is charged with reviewing a design-based planning regimen, and because it has the power to approve (rather than just advise), I think that the makeup of the panel is meant to have representation of professionals in the design field.

I know several people disagree with me, but I do think that having people with specialized training and knowledge is important on a panel like this. I also have to say that I think it's important to have the normal people there too. Being a "professional" shouldn't mean a blank acceptance of expertise... I mean, professionals are just as capable of making crappy decisions as anybody else.

I reserve judgement for a few years to see how the new process works for downtown.

halifaxboyns

Nov 14, 2011, 3:02 AM

Typically for committees like this; there is a desire to have 'professionals' employed in the general trade of urban planning, development, architecture, etc. because they know the terminology and understand the fundamentals.

If I was to bring someone off the street and ask them if they knew what floor area ratio was or density bonusing, they would look at me like I had two heads. They wouldn't understand it and it's not easy stuff to understand...there is a certain curve of learning to it and considering the expectation of this committee with the regional core project, I would think the curve is quite high.

If I look at Calgary Planning Commission as an example - most of the people on it are architects, alderman (who deal with land use on a regular basis) and practicing consultants in planning. It wasn't uncommon for some of the planning staff to be dealing with CPC members on an application and then have to go in front of them on different application. But I give them total kudos for having the best interests in mind (most of the time). Sometimes the whole professional ego thing comes out once in a while, but it's a competitive industry so I don't see that as a bad thing.

Chadillaccc

Nov 14, 2011, 11:39 AM

This would be a wicked project! Hope it goes ahead!

fenwick16

Jan 15, 2012, 2:45 PM

I just read the updated case 16655 details for this YMCA/CBC proposal - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case16655Details.html. Based on the Status section of the case details page, it appears as though this proposal can't reach the HRM_by_Design 49 meter height limit since it includes a setback requirement - "the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law stipulates that above a height of 17m at the South Park streetline, buildings shall be setback 0.9m for every 0.6m in height. The impact of this requirement on the YMCA proposal is shown here (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16655SouthParkSetbackRequirement.pdf)."

The case details page also gives a link to an additional shadow study by Michael Napier Architecture submitted on December 6, 2011 here (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16655UpdatedShadowStudy.pdf).

The information page indicates that Regional Council will consider a supplementary report in January (2012). Then to make amendments to HRM_by_Design a public meeting would have to be held.

It is starting to appear doubtful that this proposal will proceed in its current form (just my opinion).

Keith P.

Jan 15, 2012, 5:48 PM

The shadow impacts appear trivial and the setback requirements seem arbitrary at best as a result.

There is nor eason why this should not be allowed to proceed except for the structural intransigence of HRM Council and its assorted interest groups/committees towards any new development in this town. We need councilors who will find ways to support development, not to torpedo it.

RyeJay

Jan 15, 2012, 5:52 PM

Is HRM arranging some kind of bris for The Martello, too? This building breaches that setback line.

Has the construction of The Martello destroyed parts of the public gardens?

It's as though the city sometimes enjoys picking on developers.
This development has already changed several times, adhering to the rampart height restrictions.

This YMCA proposal, as is, is NOT harming the public gardens in any way. In fact, a circumferential view from within will become more interesting.

someone123

Jan 15, 2012, 8:13 PM

Some people simply do not want any new construction so they play a political game of trying to find reasons to reduce heights.

The HbD height restrictions are absurd and should never have been this low. In many cases they are lower than the buildings that already exist.

FuzzyWuz

Jan 15, 2012, 10:01 PM

Is HRM arranging some kind of bris for The Martello, too?

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

resetcbu1

Jan 16, 2012, 1:12 AM

I really hope this development goes through, I think it would fill in that area quite nicely and I really really liked the design that they had proposed. Let's hope that the wants of a few don't outweigh the need of the many, I think most people would be in favor of this and it would do wonders to revitalize that corner... But this is the HRM we're talking about here, so we'll see what kind of blunders come of this... The more these developments are shot down, the more I feel we need a wholesale change in the city, from council to city planners and bring in some people capable of thinking for themselves and doing what is best for the city instead of catering to a bunch of wing nuts like the Pacey's or the Miller's.

Anyway I really hope to see this go through, I bet you if they did a poll on all of these major developments proposed downtown, the majority of people would be in favor, but as the stadium talks have gone we know they will listen.

I'm beginning to start to feel negatively about the prospects of this city ever changing, when just a few years ago I had such high hopes but I still have my fingers crossed that things will change.

someone123

Jan 16, 2012, 2:03 AM

Change comes slowly in Halifax but I do think there have been some positive developments. Even if this is scaled back, it might still turn out nicely and many other decent projects have been built in the Spring Garden area. Projects like King's Wharf, the Trillium, or the library would have seemed like a pipe dream in 2000 or so.

The Paceys et al. are just very out of touch with the modern evolution of the city, and always behave as if they're fighting the next harbourfront expressway or Scotia Square. In the future their perspective will carry less weight (it has already lost a lot) and the connotations most people attach to tall buildings will change. They won't think of the old Fenwick, they'll think of the new Fenwick or King's Wharf and they will want more progress.

Antigonish

Jan 16, 2012, 3:58 AM

We need a Robert Moses type character in office, or majorily involved somehow. That will show those naysayers whats up! :cool:

(or is that a bit too far? lol :rolleyes:)

RyeJay

Jan 16, 2012, 4:31 AM

Change comes slowly in Halifax but I do think there have been some positive developments. Even if this is scaled back, it might still turn out nicely and many other decent projects have been built in the Spring Garden area. Projects like King's Wharf, the Trillium, or the library would have seemed like a pipe dream in 2000 or so.

Yes. I'm thankful now that HRM is finally seeing a normal amount of downtown development. I'm thrilled we're no longer throwing everything to the suburbs, but scaling back the already scaled-back YMCA proposal is demented.

I wish more Haligonians could see this graphic and its bloody red line just to see how petty this is.

If I was the developer I would make a total stink about this in the media. Here we have a developer interested in making a huge investment in our stagnant downtown and we have people worried about enough sunlight getting to the fuckin dandelions around the sidewalk.

someone123

Jan 16, 2012, 5:29 AM

I wish more Haligonians could see this graphic and its bloody red line just to see how petty this is.

What irks me is that in the media this is often presented as developers breaking the rules. They make it sound as if everybody sat down, had a good faith discussion, and came up with a compromise but now the developers are going back on their word (actually frequently it will be even worse because somebody will misinterpret a policy and present it as fact without being challenged in a news article).

In reality the property rights of developers like the YMCA pretty much seem to be ignored. Rules are imposed by councillors, who basically are representatives of homeowners' groups. Another important group is the small cabal of people who have enough time on their hands to attend lots of public sessions and, ideally, get on something like the Heritage Advisory Committee. Commercial property owners and businesses, students, commuters or suburbanites in general seem pretty much disenfranchised. They can send their money down to fix up Point Pleasant Park or something, but it's the upper middle class homeowners who call the shots.

cormiermax

Jan 16, 2012, 5:31 AM

It's times like these that make me think Halifax needs some sort of organized pro-development group to combat NIMBYism and the Heritage Trust.

halifaxboyns

Jan 16, 2012, 3:57 PM

It's times like these that make me think Halifax needs some sort of organized pro-development group to combat NIMBYism and the Heritage Trust.

There is - there are two groups on facebook called "Screw the view". One is up almost 400 members. I highly encourage people to join to get this perspective out.

cormiermax

Jan 16, 2012, 5:24 PM

There is - there are two groups on facebook called "Screw the view". One is up almost 400 members. I highly encourage people to join to get this perspective out.

I'm apart of that group, but you can hardly say that a facebook group is comparable to the heritage trust. I was talking about something more substantial that could actually get something done.

halifaxboyns

Jan 16, 2012, 5:51 PM

I wouldn't under estimate those groups.
They may be just organizing but there seems to be some real drive to make things different...who knows.

In terms of the setback requirement that has now caught this development - it's actually a pretty standard concept. However the shadow studies provided off set the issues, so a relaxation on the rule should not be an issue.

fenwick16

Jan 16, 2012, 10:55 PM

I'm apart of that group, but you can hardly say that a facebook group is comparable to the heritage trust. I was talking about something more substantial that could actually get something done.

What about the Fusion group? They have an urban development action team - http://www.fusionhalifax.ca/en/home/FUSIONactionteams/urbandevelopment/default.aspx

It seems to be a well organized group. They are looking for young people in the 20 - 40 age group.

Urban Development
There’s no question that a city is more than its buildings, parks, and streetscapes – Paris would still be Paris without the Eiffel Tower. But the world’s best cities know that careful planning and smart growth is necessary to fuel culture, opportunity, and competitive edge.

Our Urban Development Team brings together individuals with a passion for the progression of Halifax with a mandate to engage and encourage young people around the decisions that truly shape our city. With a keen eye, our team looks at city-wide progress as more than just buildings, streets and parking lots, but as an opportunity to unlock new potential for the future of our communities.

Have your voice heard and get involved. Email us at urbandevelopment@fusionhalifax.ca