[Hali87]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I don't know how I feel about this... I like the areas that they are discussing though.

Basically, every time something gets codified in Halifax it becomes ammo for the anti-height crew... especially in the context of legal interpretation.

I think HRM by design, although has positives, as simply created an environment for anti-development sentiment to be justified in the context of "breaking the rules", even though there are bonus heights, etc. built in.

Look at this document... http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistric...nalpackage.pdf

I disagree with mostly all of these proposed changes! In fact, they are all mostly restrictive and normative.

I disagree with most of them too, and a lot of what I would have wanted in there isn't there. The plan is really lacking in ambition (or even foresight) and almost everything is about either heritage, "it's too high", or creating more opportunities for appeal. Some of them said that we should adopt the Quebec City approach to heritage preservation (I would say it's too late for that) and complaining that downtown can't be a UNESCO heritage site like Lunenburg under the new plan (it wouldn't be with or without the plan unless we did something drastic and groundbreaking). It's also kind of frustrating because the "issues" are clearly just people's opinions and often contradict one another. A couple interesting passages:

ISSUE #55: Amend the wording of S. 8.4 of the DHSMPS......................................................46

ISSUE #56: Add performance measures............................................................................47

ISSUE #57: Amend S. 3.6.11 Precinct 4 Built Form Variance in the Design Manual........................48

ISSUE #58: Clarify the definitions in the LUB for “building width” and “building face”..................48

ISSUE #59: Clarify policy intent that the built form variances required to approve the
proposed Queen’s Landing project are sufficient for approval by the Design Review Committee .........49

ISSUE #60: Issues Raised in Heritage Trust Letter – May 8, 2009..............................................50

ISSUE #61: Additional Issues Raised in Heritage Trust Letter – May 21, 2009...............................51

ISSUE #62: There is a potential shortfall in growth capacity for office development
in the traditional Central Business District (CBD).................................................................59

Issues 60-62 are the best part but the rest gives you an idea of how long a letter that must have been, based on the page numbers.

Part of the Sustainability section:

ISSUE # 31: This plan reduces opportunities for solar heating. HRM has the greatest potential for using
passive solar than any city in Canada in the most important heating months. Work has been done by Solar
NS and Dal that well designed and sited buildings of 5-6 storeys can be passively heated by the sun.

ISSUE # 32: High-rise development is not sustainable.

ISSUE # 33: HRM has made serious commitments around climate change and sustainability yet they are
not upheld in HRMbyDesign. .......................................................................................86

ISSUE # 34: There has not been an adequate environmental impact assessment for such a bold change to our built form. .........................................................................................................87

ISSUE #35: There is sufficient legislative power to regulate green building design under the HRM Charter. .................................................................................................................87

ISSUE # 36: We should be conserving heritage buildings; buildings that have embodied energy already.
There are environmental benefits in redeveloping or restoring what we already have

I like #33.

Anyway, /rant, the RP+5 crowd seems a lot more proactive (though also note that "heritage" wasn't a theme this time). A couple ideas that everyone seems to be ok with are LRT and mixed-use development. Everything else is still kind of all over the place. An interesting point of discussion tonight was the distinction between "providing affordable housing" and creating conditions where housing in general isn't unaffordable - which generally means adding more units. The head of Polycorp got up and called out the complete disregard for economics in recent decisions and it seemed to be a bit of a wakeup call for some.