Peninsula North Secondary Planning Area plans?

[Waye Mason]

Hey folks, the Peninsula North Secondary Planning Area runs from downtown (just north of Cogswell, where the HRMbD Downtown ends) to Young Street.

Anyone know when the HRMbD planning is going to happen for this area?

The reason I ask is that I heard the other day that the developers with interests on Gottingen are talking about trying to get 8 story height as of right, straight up from the sidewalk line.

Now, I don't really have a problem with a lot of height, but I like a setback at the 3 or 4th floor, and I do worry that Gottingen, being only 20 feet wide, is pretty narrow to have 8 story buildings on both sides.

That said, I would take 8 stories if they were well designed, but the PNSPA has some of the worse examples of cheap crap architorture on the peninsula. Gottingen/Falkland, Gottingen/Kaye, and Cunard/Agricola. A new plan with some design requirements would help a lot.

So, thoughts, comments, ideas, rumours?

[fenwick16]

If there are going to be setback requirements then it will make developments less economically feasible for developers. If setback designs are required then it would make sense to allow more height. For example 12 storeys with setbacks instead of 8 storeys with no setbacks. In order for the city to reduce spending, it will be necessary to increase density in serviced areas. The HRM by Design bylaws haven't been very successful in promoting development in the downtown core. Most of the projects that seem to be close to proceeding are the ones that have been grandfathered in or are allowed specifically in the HRM by Design bylaws (example the Nova Centre).

[halifaxboyns]

I wouldn't say unsuccessful - I think there is still a learning period for staff and industry alike to get used to the new process and rules. Let's face it; we're not Calgary or Toronto where once the plan was done there would be a truckload of applications. I think once Nova Centre starts going - there will be some interest in downtown again, especially once larger conferences start coming. There will be a need for more hotel space; I'm guessing.

Setbacks are good in terms of scaling a building to a pedestrian. If you look at trillium; you still feel at a pedestrian scale because the massing is broken up - so your eye is 'fooled' into think it's shorter than it really is. That's why Park Vic doesn't do so well - it's just straight up and it feels overpowering when you stand next to it.

Right now anything along Gottingen and Agricola over the height precinct requires a development agreement - so things like this can be negotiated. I'd like to see a step back system much like HbD in these areas with a maximum height in the 15 to 20 storey range, with no more than 10 as of right. I think if you are going to go really tall, you should contribute to the public realm and do a lot to breakup the effects of your building. Not to say shorter shouldn't do that too; but there has to be some level of as-of-right that would get more density into the area and some taller buildings.

That or they can leave it in the current system?

[Waye Mason]

To the first point - HRMbD is working fine, on a planning level. No projects are going ahead quickly, pre or post HRMbD downtown, because of the economy. No financing and no tenants = no building. 60 day decisions in HRMbD is way better than the old process.

Second point - Well the current rules are 5-6 stories, so 8 stories with a setback is actually increasing it. I am as/more concerned with quality of construction.

Surely building is not the only goal, but building quality? Buildings go up and impact where people live for 100 years or more. How can anyone look at Falkland/Gottingen and think that is a good thing to have built?

I am no heritage activist but I don't want to see Halifax turn into some Soviet type city full of utilitarian concrete boxes.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

To the first point - HRMbD is working fine, on a planning level. No projects are going ahead quickly, pre or post HRMbD downtown, because of the economy. No financing and no tenants = no building. 60 day decisions in HRMbD is way better than the old process.

Second point - Well the current rules are 5-6 stories, so 8 stories with a setback is actually increasing it. I am as/more concerned with quality of construction.

Surely building is not the only goal, but building quality? Buildings go up and impact where people live for 100 years or more. How can anyone look at Falkland/Gottingen and think that is a good thing to have built?

I am no heritage activist but I don't want to see Halifax turn into some Soviet type city full of utilitarian concrete boxes.

I think most of us want modern, glass developments... which are supposedly "evil" or "bad" for Halifax.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think most of us want modern, glass developments... which are supposedly "evil" or "bad" for Halifax.

Love the sarcasm in this comment.
I think KeithP put it best when talking about Nova Centre, that the '7 storey model' that Pacey keeps trying to push doesn't work.
The goal for this plan should be two fold:

First it should create a reasonably achievable goal for the area, increasing density. These neighbourhoods are perfectly located close to the core and as a result are the perfect areas to intensify. The plan should set clear targets for building height standards, unit size, parking and set goals for very nicely redone public realm (cafes, sidewalks, etc).

The second thing that it should do is setout clear design expectations - setting what can be done as of right and then when a DA through HbD kicks in. It should setout examples of good design materials and methods and show bad designs that should be discouraged and mostly should encourage parking to be as much underground as possible.

Personally; while the dreamer in me would say go big and let things be 30+ stories; realistically that won't happen. But I don't think this area being up to 20 stories is out of the realm of unreasonable. Plus; if you let things get that high through bonusing, you can get contributions to the public realm and other things done which might not be able to happen if you stick to the Pacey 7 model (as I've nick named it).

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think most of us want modern, glass developments... which are supposedly "evil" or "bad" for Halifax.

Oh that would be fine, but about 60% of what is built in the North End is utilitarian concrete boxes or shit cheap buildings with high concrete plinths to put cheap parking under cheap apartments.

I am not disrespecting the views & goals of this board, I am pointing out that right now the Peninsula North area is getting a lot of really ugly buildings.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The goal for this plan should be two fold:

First it should create a reasonably achievable goal for the area, increasing density. These neighbourhoods are perfectly located close to the core and as a result are the perfect areas to intensify. The plan should set clear targets for building height standards, unit size, parking and set goals for very nicely redone public realm (cafes, sidewalks, etc).

The second thing that it should do is setout clear design expectations - setting what can be done as of right and then when a DA through HbD kicks in. It should setout examples of good design materials and methods and show bad designs that should be discouraged and mostly should encourage parking to be as much underground as possible.

Personally; while the dreamer in me would say go big and let things be 30+ stories; realistically that won't happen. But I don't think this area being up to 20 stories is out of the realm of unreasonable. Plus; if you let things get that high through bonusing, you can get contributions to the public realm and other things done which might not be able to happen if you stick to the Pacey 7 model (as I've nick named it).

I agree, these are the two points that are missing right now in the North End, for every good building or renovation something horrible goes in that is worse than an empty lot, in my opinion.

I am all for 20-30 story buildings where appropriate. Why we focus on that for downtown along Barrington is beyond me. I just don't think the road/sidewalks in our old downtown are wide enough. You go to Toronto Edmonton, New York the main drags are usually twice as wide as barrington, 5 lanes of traffice, bigger sidewalks.

We could put 30 story towers down in the old railway cut/pier 21, or all along the old railway cut between Barrington and dockyard, or have a high density corridor approved for the Kempt Road area. There are sites all over the peninsula where this might make more sense then most of the 250 year old street grid between Blowers and Duke.

[fenwick16]

I have a somewhat different viewpoint on this topic Waye Mason. Having wide streets leads to a vehicular friendly city with fewer pedestrians. Having a compact downtown like Halifax makes the city more vibrant with more pedestrians since it results in a walkable city-core. I don't think that it is necessary to have low rise buildings in the downtown core but instead it is simply necessary to limit cars in the downtown core. People should be able to park their cars on the perimeter of the downtown core and then use a rapid transit system to get around the downtown area.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I have a somewhat different viewpoint on this topic Waye Mason. Having wide streets leads to a vehicular friendly city with fewer pedestrians. Having a compact downtown like Halifax makes the city more vibrant with more pedestrians since it results in a walkable city-core. I don't think that it is necessary to have low rise buildings in the downtown core but instead it is simply necessary to limit cars in the downtown core. People should be able to park their cars on the perimeter of the downtown core and then use a rapid transit system to get around the downtown area.

I would have to agree with fenwick to a point. It seems to me that Metro Transit is attempting to do just as you mention Fenwick with Lacewood (the park and ride lot at NW Arm Drive and the 102 for instance). Personally, I've always believed the park and ride lots should be designed to be parkades - expandable with some retail to really promote use of transit. Calgary's decision to charge $3 to park/day is rediculous and totally goes against the point of encouraging transit.

That being said; I think we can put tall buildings downtown but we need to be prepared to pay for it in the sense that it costs a lot to build underground parking. The more parking you put in downtown, the less pedestrian friendly it is. Calgary's transportation plan puts pedestrians first and cars last; at least that's the vision for the next 60 years. So downtown can grow and have tall buildings, so long as (as it's intensified) we make sure more transit linkages are there (high speed ferry, regional rail, BRT, etc.).

This planning area has the benefit of larger carriageways for vehicles on both Agricola and Quinpool. You could easily have 2 lanes each direction if you remove on street parking. So if you want to use them as an auto corridor, then that's an option. Personally, i'd like to see Quinpool be a main car artery but not Agricola. But then again, when I look at the Cambie Street corridor in Vancouver (near the Olympic village station); it's a big, busy street but still pretty pedestrian friendly. I've always thought that Agricola and Quinpool could be Halifax's version of Cambie or Broadway - big box retail or just regular commercial on the ground; with dwelling units above. A mix of heights 10 to 20 stories would be great, but if you want to encourage a community - keep Agricola a one lane street so you can have sidewalk cafes.

You can offset the loss of the street parking but setting up a system where by each redevelopment contributes (in a levy) money towards the construction of a parkade for all the businesses to use. That way; the onsite parking requirement can be reduced and then a common garage be built.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I am all for 20-30 story buildings where appropriate. Why we focus on that for downtown along Barrington is beyond me. I just don't think the road/sidewalks in our old downtown are wide enough. You go to Toronto Edmonton, New York the main drags are usually twice as wide as barrington, 5 lanes of traffice, bigger sidewalks.

This isn't necessarily true. This is Lower Manhattan: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...,25.4,,0,-9.92

Also, nowhere in Halifax has densities like the dense parts of Manhattan. There, the big buildings are 80 storeys or more. The big difference there is that they have subways, not 5 lane roads for insignificant amounts of car traffic. As for Edmonton, not sure we should be emulating their streetscapes...

People in Halifax have a very distorted view of what is "high density". Most areas of Halifax considered crowded are very low density. Even if every proposed highrise in Halifax were immediately built it would not be very densely developed.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by someone123

This isn't necessarily true. This is Lower Manhattan: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...,25.4,,0,-9.92

Also, nowhere in Halifax has densities like the dense parts of Manhattan. There, the big buildings are 80 storeys or more. The big difference there is that they have subways, not 5 lane roads for insignificant amounts of car traffic. As for Edmonton, not sure we should be emulating their streetscapes...

People in Halifax have a very distorted view of what is "high density". Most areas of Halifax considered crowded are very low density. Even if every proposed highrise in Halifax were immediately built it would not be very densely developed.

Sure, and 1.5 block away is Broadway, which is about as wide or wider than Barrington. And again I have no problem with density, I just don't think it is appropriate everywhere all the time.

My point is that our Queen Street West or Whyte Avenue is also our Bay Street or 108th Street NW. It can't be both, and you can't build one from new, so I am inclined to build new/tall not right there.

[halifaxboyns]

I don't think we should worry in terms of 'bad' new buildings going up here. It's been my experience here in Calgary that with material costs being cheap (compared to the boom); that small buildings like what are popping up can be taken down quite easily, if the value of the community warrents it.

Let me put it another way. Let's say that the NSCC concept (12 or so stories) goes ahead and the building is done and then the policy encourages such intensification in this area to some degree. When that building is done, land values will go up sharply. So if the value of the parcel that these buildings are on goes up and the material cost is low and the return on investment (if someone were to intensify is good); then taking the building down (despite it being relatively new) could happen.

I can think of a few instances in Calgary and Edmonton. It will be the economic return that would determine that and I think if both Agricola and Quinpool are well planned with good policy; it wouldn't be difficult to see this happen.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't think we should worry in terms of 'bad' new buildings going up here.

I think the city should work toward improving the quality of new buildings but the fact is that the perfect building that pleases everybody will never be constructed.

In general there's way too much hand-wringing about non-issues in Halifax. Excessive density is a big one - the downtown's primary problem is that it is underdeveloped, not that it is getting too densely built up. It could have 10,000 new residents in 20 highrises and the only difference would be moderately busier sidewalks and better shopping.