[Halifax] 290 Herring Cove Road | 15 m | 4 fl | Proposed
 

Name: 290 Herring Cove Road
Height: 18m
Floors: 7 floors
Status: Proposed
Location: 286-292 Herring Cove Road, Halifax
Approval Date: N/A
Developer(s): Property Owner
Architect(s): W.M. Fares Inc
Uses: Residential + Ground Floor Daycare Facility
Timeline:

2012.11.16 - Revised Proposal Released

---

This project has been revised so it now deserves a proper thread. :)

Case 16367 Details
Rendering

"A second public information meeting will be held on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Captain William Spry Community Centre, Multi-Purpose Room, 10 Kidston Road, Halifax. At the second public information meeting, the applicant will present their revised proposal for a commercial daycare and multi-unit residential building at 286/290/292 Herring Cove Road. No decisions will be made at the meeting."

----

IMO the building is a great step forward for the area. The height is a lot for the area but this is a result of public feedback from the last proposal to keep a buffer area and protect the wetland. The stepped design mitigates this issue and it has good street presence on a major road in a highly convenient area. It has good public transit with a stop nearby servicing the Mumford Terminal full-time.

The only things I would change are; a small retail spot on shorter part of front facade, buried utilities poles, tree planting in sidewalk buffer, and a centre-median with left-turn into driveway.

Looks kind of cool, not a huge fan of all the yellow though.

And you can be almost guaranteed that the yellow will somehow end up as vinyl siding... Other than that, it will be a solid addition to the area.

If they could keep the yellow as wooden clapboard [or anything other than vinyl really], then it could be a very nice building IMO.

I just mean it would look better if they didn't paint/side the whole right half in one colour. The theme of the left half seems to be "a mishmash of different colours and textures" (which could actually look great) but the right half is "everything is yellow".

My guess is that it will have cement board siding, not vinyl.

It looks okay, and it will be great for the neighbourhood. It's unfortunate that the mainland south area is so stunted by poor infrastructure. It would probably be better for the city to divert suburban development there instead of somewhere 5-10 km farther out. I think a bridge going over the Arm would make a lot of sense (if Halifax were a normal city it would probably have one at South Street and one at Point Pleasant Drive), and it doesn't have to be unattractive. A bridge over the Fleming Park could even be an asset to people living on the Halifax side.

I grew up near Fleming Park and you're right about the infrastructure. Spryfield/Mainland South is a weird area, in that it seems like little to no planning has gone into it ever. I agree that it's weird that HRM doesn't focus development there, although I think that ideally the concept of TOD becomes more entrenched before Spryfield becomes too much more built up. If a pedestrian/public transit only bridge were constructed along with dense TOD areas between Purcell's Cove Road and Herring Cove Road, people would actually choose transit/active transpo because it would legitimately be faster than driving. People in the area also seem to care a lot more about conserving wetlands and other natural areas than keeping highrises out. As it is most new developments in Spryfield are pretty substandard low-mid density suburban crap and the road network is growing less and less focused (HCR is the only real artery through the area and most new roads connect to roads that connect to roads that connect to roads that connect to HCR)

Actually there was an article recently in ANS about a Clayton development around Williams Lake, and it had a comment about how the local residents were happy that it was lower density. Low density development is not the way to build functioning neighbourhoods while preserving wetlands. In practice I think people would genuinely prefer Spryfield more if it had a cluster of medium-sized buildings like this one to support more local business while still allowing people to live close to lakes and wilderness.

It is crazy just how close some of the mainland neighbourhoods are to the city, given how undeveloped they are. The closest parts are about 1 kilometre away from Dal. Some people living below Purcells Cove Road could easily walk to Dal if there were a bridge, and a much larger number of people could bike over or bike downtown. South Street goes right down to the water so a small bridge there wouldn't be very disruptive. It seems like a clear win, assuming the bridge design is attractive.

Halifax has progressed a lot when it comes to infill buildings, but many people still have an outdated view of infrastructure like bridges and roads. They equate infrastructure building with Cogswell or Bayers Lake, just like some people think that highrises are all like Scotia Square. At the same time many of these people want better transit services that are pretty much contingent on road network improvements. The city of course needs a more balanced approach. As it grows it will need to handle more vehicles while at the same time increasing the modal share of transit and active transportation. If no new infrastructure is built it won't stop people from driving, it will just cause congestion and push more people out to the suburbs, causing them to drive more.

I think it would be good to have an ambitious transportation planning process where the city brings in consultants and looks very publicly at what its transportation needs will be like over the next 10-30 years, what sort of infrastructure could be built, and what the tradeoffs are. An exercise like that might get people residents and council thinking in more appropriate terms: modal share, correctly-scaled infrastructure choices, and associated tradeoffs, not "cars vs. people"-style rhetoric.

In the case of Williams Lake itself I think there are some competing interests. The area currently has a bit of a "cottage country" feel (low density, mostly detached housing, lots of private docks, fishing, and supervised/unsupervised swimming areas). It might be the most popular lake for recreational purposes on the Halifax side of the harbour. I'd imagine people want low density around the lake itself to maintain this atmosphere. I think elsewhere in MS people would be more willing to see high density if it meant that less wilderness would ultimately be developed.

One problem with arguing that lakes and wetlands should only have low-density development is that the city is, arguably, mostly lake and wetland, even out in far-flung suburbs like Fall River. Protecting one wetland area just pushes development out to the next one. On balance that's even worse for the environment because more pristine wilderness is disturbed (the mainland NS moose population has plummeted) and people drive more. The Birch Cove wilderness area is also nice but I'm not convinced that preserving it has good environmental consequences as people claim. I'm not convinced that it's unique. I think people just want to preserve what is in their own backyard.

If we set the environmental argument aside, I think it's OK to limit development around a lake if there is a compelling public benefit. If it's just used by private landowners, why do their demands take precedent over those of other landowners who also want to build?

It is too bad that when Harbour Drive was stopped (fortunately so) that plans for a Northwest Arm bridge didn't proceed. Halifax would be a better place if the Cogswell Interchange was never built and a Northwest Bridge was built instead. I also think that this is crazy; a Northwest Arm bridge should have been built decades ago.

It's used by the public as well. There's a public beach and several public access points, although there's little to no signage marking where they are.

Building's been knocked back down to 4 floors. Staff is recommending approval of this project and a few rezonings nearby;

Staff Report & Development Agreement (H&WCC - March 25th, 2014)

First reading at Regional Council will be held on Tuesday, April 15th. A public hearing will then be scheduled and once the MPS/LUB amendments are in effect H&WCC will decide on the development agreement.

See the post above for the staff report.

MPS/LUB amendments were approved tonight at Regional Council. The development agreement will be brought back in the near future. Councillors Adams & Watts were the only dissenters.

Cripes. Watts needs to find another line of work.

Has Watts ever voted for any development?????

She votes for 90% of what is put in front of us. Give me a break. She has voted for all those little 6-7 story condos and apartments in the North End for example, a dozen of them. When I say I voted for 150 developments in the last 18 months I think she voted for maybe 142. I think we have voted the opposite of each other 10 times, twice last night.

Again, it is not a Councillors job to vote yes - if our job was to approve everything unquestioned, you could just get rid of Council and let the bureaucrats do whatever they wanted. I would say 50% of the time that there is a contentious issue staff are against Council overrides them and lets it go ahead, so that might not get you the results you are looking for.

I agree. She needs to go.

Since I moved to Halifax, I feel like I've noticed an unusually large number of locals who seem to think the job of municipal politicians should be to get out of developers' way, rather than hold them to planning standards or reflect their constituents' concerns.

It's certainly a minority, but I don't often hear this, "Oh, the poor developers have to abide by community standards or consider local concerns" talk elsewhere. It's weird.