HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 6:37 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
You haven't missed her vision, because she really doesn't have one. She has a re-election strategy, not a vision. She just opposes every proposed development at every stage, at all times. I think she's decided that it's a winning re-election formula and just sticks with it.

And, unfortunately, she does keep winning.

And when a councillor is so cluelessly single-minded, then they become polarizing. Such an approach polarizes more fair-minded councillors, making them angry and more "pro-development" than they would otherwise be. And the happy compromise in the middle is lost.

Watts creates the same problems that the NS Anti Development Trust causes -- they oppose every single development, and so developers do not consult with them, or try to work out a compromise. They know that any such efforts will be useless. And so, developers are polarized against the Trust and also heritage issues more generally, and so a proper compromise is lost. It's more productive to sue and humiliate the Trust, because you cannot work with them. They will sue you and oppose you no matter what steps you take to preserve heritage.
A very simplistic view of Cllr Watts and a view which ignores the recommendations of the planning staff.
What was the point of HbD if a speculator can agree to purchase/purchase a property outside the HbD boundary and then convince a council to change the rules and then build a property that would not be allowed under HbD ?
Most businesses like a certain degree of certainty when making investment decisions.
In this case,and any other case which is outside Hbd, the investor is competing against investors with property inside the area of HbD. If others get the same deal the densification outside HbD will be cheaper and defeat the purpose of HbD ?
Development in HRM is now akin to the wild west - anything goes. The councillors outside the core want these developments so they can then vote to get money for their districts. dalrymple and Hendsbee want HRM to spend millions on new water lines to parts of their districts and want all taxpayers to pay for the expansion - in effect bailing out sprawl in areas where the water supply is meagre or tainted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 6:41 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Oh there would definitely be opposition, guaranteed.

In fact, in London, they oppose three-storey buildings in the city centre..

In St. Catharines, four storeys gets their ire up, and council kowtows.

How many times must I insist that Halifax isn't uniquely anti-development before people believe me? Really, the degree of NIMBYism and opposition seen here is completely normal for any city. Visit the other local forums and read all the folks on there complaining about the same thing we complain about here.

In fact, on Ossington Avenue in Toronto (a major inner-city commercial street in a dense, city-centre neighbourhood) residents actually pushed recently for exactly what it sounds like Watts is advocating—a localized planning rulebook that would result in scaled-down projects. The local councillor championed it, and it was successfully passed.

What I'm curious to know is if anyone watched the meeting or has a sense of the particulars of the discussion. I don't understand what Watts was proposing because I just saw a few tweets about it. assume I would disagree with her on this, but I want to know the particulars of her argument before I decide...
Drybrain, it's entirely possible that Halifax is not "unique" in its NIMBYism-- I'm not yet entirely convinced, but open to the idea-- but I think there's a big difference in how effective NIMBYism is, in stopping developments in Halifax, as compared to Toronto.

We don't have hard numbers to compare (proposals stopped in Toronto vs Halifax) but my sense is it is quite rare for NIMBY hecklers to truly kill a proposal in Toronto if it has the support of city planners.

Normally, city planners support proposals unless they are uniquely invasive or precedent setting (like the Mirvish proposal).

Here's why the process is different: in Toronto, if it makes it to the Ontario Municipal Board (which, unlike NSUARB, has a rep for being developer friendly and approving most proposals that get to it) you can only appeal a decision of the OMB, if the board made an error of law. That's typically not what's at stake in a planning decision. It's usually a question of fact-- based on expert opinions, etc.

By contrast, according to the UARB FAQ, you can appeal the UARB to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on how you'd like to challenge. Each of those court decisions, could lead to further appeals, cross appeals, further motions, etc, etc. The Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the SCC. That can take years to settle.

So in Halifax, the whole problem with the traditional DA process, was the risk, from the get go, that you could be tied up in litigation for years and years, fighting a well funded / wealthy / faux outrage machine, like wealthy Sound End property owners and their various advocacy vehicles, whether its the Heritage Committee, Heritage Foundation, STV, Friends of whatever they are friends with this week.

The appeals process in Toronto/Ontario is much, much, more limited. Without a question of law problem, you're not going anywhere. And if you can get the city planners to approve, your chances are pretty good. It's the difference between development certainty and development chill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 6:58 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
This human scale thing keeps coming up and to me is a non-starter. Human scale isn't just about the height of the building - it's about the design of the building at the street level (the street wall height, the uses at grade and how well the building blends with the street).
Yes, exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns
This is an area where, to me, having any single detached dwellings is a bad idea. This should be an area where parcel consolidation is encouraged and rezoning to some level of multi occurs (particularly the houses along Woodwill and Harris). The tallest, most intense stuff should front to Agricola, with shorter as you get towards the block before Gottingen. 8 stories in terms of the existing context around there isn't out of the realm of possibility considering its all mainly 4 storey apartment buildings and older commercial/industrial uses.
I think we've discussed this here before, but I do disagree with this--the endgame here is the elimination of the historical housing fabric of the North End, which would be a disaster. Halifax only has a handful of good, intact historical neighbourhoods. There's so much room for peninsular and near-peninsular intensification that I don't think this is necessary, and I think it has the potential to ruin the process of incremental improvement that's already brought the neighbourhood quite far from its nadir. And if this actually happened (Agricola lined with eight-storey buildings and four-six storey buildings elsewhere) would make it the denses residential neighbourhood in Canada, probably--denser than the Plateau, but without the historical interest. I don't think it would be for the best.

In any case, as the neighbourhood becomes less renter-oriented and more homeowner-filled, it won't happen anyway because block consolidation will be increasingly difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual
The appeals process in Toronto/Ontario is much, much, more limited. Without a question of law problem, you're not going anywhere. And if you can get the city planners to approve, your chances are pretty good. It's the difference between development certainty and development chill.
Yeah, but by the time something gets to the OMB it's probably been in the approvals/appeals stage for several years, and the OMB has a bad reputation for running roughshod over local council decisions. No one, as far as I can recall, really likes the OMB unless it rules in their favour.

And while it's rare for citizen opposition to truly kill proposals in TO, when those proposals fall within planning guidelines, but it's certainly not unheard of.

And it's rare here too, isn't it? When a project is legal and conforming to zoning, I can't think of many situations where it's been kiboshed. I can think of a bunch of situations, though, where council has permitted developers to exceed zoning. So I think it's a bad rap Halifax gets.

Spirit Place is a good example to the contrary though.

Last edited by Drybrain; Dec 10, 2014 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 7:17 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Drybrain, it's entirely possible that Halifax is not "unique" in its NIMBYism-- I'm not yet entirely convinced, but open to the idea-- but I think there's a big difference in how effective NIMBYism is, in stopping developments in Halifax, as compared to Toronto.

We don't have hard numbers to compare (proposals stopped in Toronto vs Halifax) but my sense is it is quite rare for NIMBY hecklers to truly kill a proposal in Toronto if it has the support of city planners.

Normally, city planners support proposals unless they are uniquely invasive or precedent setting (like the Mirvish proposal).

Here's why the process is different: in Toronto, if it makes it to the Ontario Municipal Board (which, unlike NSUARB, has a rep for being developer friendly and approving most proposals that get to it) you can only appeal a decision of the OMB, if the board made an error of law. That's typically not what's at stake in a planning decision. It's usually a question of fact-- based on expert opinions, etc.

By contrast, according to the UARB FAQ, you can appeal the UARB to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on how you'd like to challenge. Each of those court decisions, could lead to further appeals, cross appeals, further motions, etc, etc. The Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the SCC. That can take years to settle.

So in Halifax, the whole problem with the traditional DA process, was the risk, from the get go, that you could be tied up in litigation for years and years, fighting a well funded / wealthy / faux outrage machine, like wealthy Sound End property owners and their various advocacy vehicles, whether its the Heritage Committee, Heritage Foundation, STV, Friends of whatever they are friends with this week.

The appeals process in Toronto/Ontario is much, much, more limited. Without a question of law problem, you're not going anywhere. And if you can get the city planners to approve, your chances are pretty good. It's the difference between development certainty and development chill.
But in Toronto, first you have to meet with the councillor and the residents and lay out what community benefits you will provide to the adjacent community or how much money you will provide for projects in the community. The councillor decides how and where the money will be spent, whereas in Halifax the money gets shipped out of the adjacent community. And that is why there are so few appeals in Toronto. the developers know who they have to deal with and know the rules are the same for everyone. In HRM it's "Approve everything, we need the money"
If HRM council is willing to support such a process I am sure many people will be happy.

Read this :

" Mr. Ford dive-tackled a proposal to support an office-residential-retail tower in Adam Vaughan’s downtown ward. City staff recommended rejecting the original proposal; Mr. Vaughan put forward a motion to support a revised version of the proposal which, among other things, would put $1-million into city coffers for infrastructure work in the neighbourhood.

The mayor was not impressed.

“It’s wrong for him to be asking developers for this money,” he said. “If staff says ‘no,’ and the local councillor jumps in and says, ‘Hold on, partner. Gimme a million dollars and we’ll put it through council,’ why have staff ? ”

Negotiations for the $1-million, as well as other concessions such as changes to the building design, were done under Section 37, a piece of provincial legislation that allows for the city to negotiate community benefits in exchange for more height or density in a development than would otherwise not be allowed. Both Mr. Ford and his brother, councillor Doug Ford, have criticized the process in the past, characterizing it as an unfair way to exact cash from developers. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5832154/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 8:04 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
But in Toronto, first you have to meet with the councillor and the residents and lay out what community benefits you will provide to the adjacent community or how much money you will provide for projects in the community. The councillor decides how and where the money will be spent, whereas in Halifax the money gets shipped out of the adjacent community. And that is why there are so few appeals in Toronto. the developers know who they have to deal with and know the rules are the same for everyone. In HRM it's "Approve everything, we need the money"
If HRM council is willing to support such a process I am sure many people will be happy.
That only happens for projects involving Section 37 though, which is just density bonusing by another name. Most projects don't involve a consideration of localized benefits, but are just approved or not approved based on planning principles for the zoning in question. Ford opposed section 37 because he's an ignoramus who doesn't understand anything about proper planning.

It's true though, I think, that some Haligonians and councillors have the mentality that we should rubber-stamp everything, no questions asked, which is silly. If TO council denies a development application, the Star isn't running an editorial the next day about how the city is chasing developers away and ruining the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 8:14 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
That only happens for projects involving Section 37 though, which is just density bonusing by another name. Most projects don't involve a consideration of localized benefits, but are just approved or not approved based on planning principles for the zoning in question. Ford opposed section 37 because he's an ignoramus who doesn't understand anything about proper planning.

It's true though, I think, that some Haligonians and councillors have the mentality that we should rubber-stamp everything, no questions asked, which is silly. If TO council denies a development application, the Star isn't running an editorial the next day about how the city is chasing developers away and ruining the city.
Adam Vaughan and two other councillors raked in over $75 million, more than half the section 37 money, for their districts. In Toronto the density bonusing money doesn't get spent across the city. If we had the same rules here councillors may be more thoughtful about approving projects.

http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/adam-vaughan/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 10:53 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Ha--I helped to edit that piece. (I worked at The Grid before it bellyflopped into oblivion last year like the rest of the print-media world).

But yeah, you're right that section 37 funds stay in the wards they're in. This actually can be detrimental, however--in Toronto, the city has been somewhat too reliant on section 37 funds to pay for basic stuff. Adam Vaughan's ward is one of the wealthiest wards in the city, and also home to a a disproportionate amount of the city's large developments. Which mean this his ward was raking in huge amounts section 37 cash, while wards in which residents were struggling to get basic services met got almost nothing. So it's not a perfect solution--it has the potential to exacerbate existing social inequalities within the city.

I think if the developer is providing a tangible benefit--streetscaping, public art, a playground, etc--in exchange for added density or a variance of some kind, it's logical to put that in the community affected.

But when it's cash, I think it makes sense to put it in a general pool for use city-wide. Otherwise you end up in a situation where there's a ridiculous amount of money to spend in one or two areas that are really popular with developers, and the you only have crumbs for other areas. We are all one city, after all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 11:07 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
How many times must I insist that Halifax isn't uniquely anti-development before people believe me? Really, the degree of NIMBYism and opposition seen here is completely normal for any city. Visit the other local forums and read all the folks on there complaining about the same thing we complain about here.
Thank you!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 11:16 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
And it's rare here too, isn't it? When a project is legal and conforming to zoning, I can't think of many situations where it's been kiboshed. I can think of a bunch of situations, though, where council has permitted developers to exceed zoning. So I think it's a bad rap Halifax gets.

Spirit Place is a good example to the contrary though.
I think HRMxD has provided some development certainty in the core, but everything outside of it-- which must go by the traditional DA process-- it's a much different story. Outside the HRMxD zone, I don't think it's rare at all. The front cover of MetroNews is another example -- the latest Wellington proposal is being strongly opposed by NIMBYs. I bet it'll also die, like the last one.

The reason why NIMBYism is so effective outside the HRMxD area, is that we have zoning and planning rules that haven't been updated for almost half a century, so they offer no incentives or accommodation for more recent planning objectives -- density, density bonusing, etc-- and more modern development proposals. And, most importantly, since zoning and planning rules are so out of date, every single new proposal beyond a single unit house requires an MPS/LUB amendment to proceed.

That means, the amendment must be approved by Council-- which itself is subject to NIMBY pandering-- and also the DA must approved too, and the DA must go to community councils, where they can be killed by a majority (4 out of 6 votes, and the DA is dead). And, what is more, community councils have councillors local to the NIMBYhood and are thus more likely to pander to NIMBY complaints.

This forum is littered with killed developments due to NIMBY complaints. They're not hard to find.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 11:41 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I think HRMxD has provided some development certainty in the core, but everything outside of it-- which must go by the traditional DA process-- it's a much different story. Outside the HRMxD zone, I don't think it's rare at all. The front cover of MetroNews is another example -- the latest Wellington proposal is being strongly opposed by NIMBYs. I bet it'll also die, like the last one.

The reason why NIMBYism is so effective outside the HRMxD area, is that we have zoning and planning rules that haven't been updated for almost half a century, so they offer no incentives or accommodation for more recent planning objectives -- density, density bonusing, etc-- and more modern development proposals.
Yeah, but that's non-conforming with the zoning, so that's a different issue. It bet that in most cities, a developer wouldn't have even bothered to bring it forward at that height. It probably will be quashed, but I don't think the outcome would be different in another city. (One difference with HFX and other cities that I've found is that developers are constantly bringing forward proposals in blatant excess of zoning. Then when they're shot down, we cry NIMBY. Skye is like the uber-example.)

But you're right in that the uncertainty around rules makes this possible, because sometimes these projects get approved. And the frustrating counter-example is that developers can do everything right, and still get their projects killed if a small group of people decided to raise a fuss about it.

But I think I have to brush up of my knowledge of local zoning before I get any deeper into this, though... the limits of my knowledge are being reached.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2014, 11:59 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Ha--I helped to edit that piece. (I worked at The Grid before it bellyflopped into oblivion last year like the rest of the print-media world).

But yeah, you're right that section 37 funds stay in the wards they're in. This actually can be detrimental, however--in Toronto, the city has been somewhat too reliant on section 37 funds to pay for basic stuff. Adam Vaughan's ward is one of the wealthiest wards in the city, and also home to a a disproportionate amount of the city's large developments. Which mean this his ward was raking in huge amounts section 37 cash, while wards in which residents were struggling to get basic services met got almost nothing. So it's not a perfect solution--it has the potential to exacerbate existing social inequalities within the city.

I think if the developer is providing a tangible benefit--streetscaping, public art, a playground, etc--in exchange for added density or a variance of some kind, it's logical to put that in the community affected.

But when it's cash, I think it makes sense to put it in a general pool for use city-wide. Otherwise you end up in a situation where there's a ridiculous amount of money to spend in one or two areas that are really popular with developers, and the you only have crumbs for other areas. We are all one city, after all.
All good points.
I's settle for 50% staying in the district.
I know enough about how councils work to tell you that in HRM the 'build anything, we want the money' are in the majority.
Hendsbee is a very hard worker for his district, he's a Tory but people from across the political spectrum vote for him because he delivers for his constituents.
When RP+5 was before council he had done his homework, page after page was bookmarked and he steadily worked through all the issues that will or may affect his district and suggested amendments for many parts of documents.
In another post I have written about the water woes in Preston/Lawrencetown - the study was a result of his work. He often mentions safe water supply in Musquodoboit Harbour.
Dalrymple sits next to Hendsbee and he wants safe water in his area

Guess who they expect to pay the millions dollars for such projects ?
Answer : HRM + NS+ Feds + token amount from property owners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 12:04 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post

The reason why NIMBYism is so effective outside the HRMxD area, is that we have zoning and planning rules that haven't been updated for almost half a century, so they offer no incentives or accommodation for more recent planning objectives -- density, density bonusing, etc-- and more modern

This forum is littered with killed developments due to NIMBY complaints. They're not hard to find.
Put a list up.
Perhaps you could start with the developer Louis Lawen opposing the 28 storey Can-Euro project next to his project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 1:34 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
A very simplistic view of Cllr Watts and a view which ignores the recommendations of the planning staff.
What was the point of HbD if a speculator can agree to purchase/purchase a property outside the HbD boundary and then convince a council to change the rules and then build a property that would not be allowed under HbD ?
Most businesses like a certain degree of certainty when making investment decisions.
In this case,and any other case which is outside Hbd, the investor is competing against investors with property inside the area of HbD. If others get the same deal the densification outside HbD will be cheaper and defeat the purpose of HbD ?
Development in HRM is now akin to the wild west - anything goes. The councillors outside the core want these developments so they can then vote to get money for their districts. dalrymple and Hendsbee want HRM to spend millions on new water lines to parts of their districts and want all taxpayers to pay for the expansion - in effect bailing out sprawl in areas where the water supply is meagre or tainted.
A very simplistic view of HRMxD and a view that ignores the recommendations of planning staff in moving forward on the Centre Plan.

HRMxD aimed to simplify planning rules in the core area and provide soem development certainty for both developers and residents. It did not, as you seem to be suggesting, all of a sudden provide some "maximalist" account of development for anywhere beyond the "core" area covered. As in, no one could ever propose or build to higher outside the HRMxD zone than what HRMxD allows within that zone.

In fact, many believe that parts of the Centre Plan should allow much, much, greater height allowances in certain areas, like Cogswell. 40+ floors for example... far beyond the Ramparts-and-Viewplanes-limited height allowances for HRMxD nearby.

As DryBrain wrote elsewhere, the Centre Plan is supposed to be an extension of HRMxD, but modified depending on the area and other related principles. So, yes, it's entirely contemplated that someone might offer development proposals that would be permissible under HRMxD rules or might go far beyond those limits, outside HRMxD zones.

I don't disagree that there is a "wild west" in parts of HRM, where anything goes, but it's certainly not the developers we debate on here. Nor is it the developers you're always complaining about -- Lawen, Fares, etc.

It's the suburban homebuilders and related developers buying up cheap land out in the boondocks and developing quickly and cheaply crappy cookie cutter suburban housing blocks, spreading sprawl further and further out.

So you're at least right about those suburban/rural/exurban Councillors. They're happy with sprawl and happy to have taxpayers in the core subsidize their sprawl via extending services.

We agree on that. But not the developments proposed downtown. If there is a "wild west" downtown, where "anything goes" please provide a list. You can start with... well, actually, I can't think of a single proposal on the peninsula that coasted through approval like any "wild west".

Last edited by counterfactual; Dec 11, 2014 at 4:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2015, 11:50 PM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
Seems the heritage trust is in full swing against this one at some meeting tonight. Apparently this building will lead to lead to sprawl, won't encourage long term residents in North End
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2015, 11:54 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by hokus83 View Post
Seems the heritage trust is in full swing against this one at some meeting tonight. Apparently this building will lead to lead to sprawl, won't encourage long term residents in North End
I saw that too. "Sprawl" as a result of a moderately dense building on Maynard St.? I am having trouble connecting those dots.

Let's deport these idiots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2015, 11:59 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I saw that too. "Sprawl" as a result of a moderately dense building on Maynard St.? I am having trouble connecting those dots.

Let's deport these idiots.
Sprawl - really!? Was there a train departing from reality this weekend?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 1:02 AM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I saw that too. "Sprawl" as a result of a moderately dense building on Maynard St.? I am having trouble connecting those dots.

Let's deport these idiots.
Or give them a cookie for learning a new word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 6:09 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I saw that too. "Sprawl" as a result of a moderately dense building on Maynard St.? I am having trouble connecting those dots.

Let's deport these idiots.
Complete and total idiots.

They're not to be taken serious. They just oppose any kind of density development. The perfect NIMBYs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 2:13 PM
enjoy*responsibly enjoy*responsibly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 18
Guys guys guys, it's not NIMBYism... but you just can't build it here


To be serious, the discussion and compromise is very important to make things work for all parties involved. I wasn't at the meeting last night but I get the sense it was just a lot of "nope"... I wonder what the "nope" crowd would like to see there? What would they consider appropriate?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 7:37 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 983
They want a park on that location just like every other lot that's empty or about to be redeveloped. We need more parks so one can walk from park to park to park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.