[Halifax] 636 Bedford Highway | 25 m | 8 fl | Approved

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There's also quite a bit of retail etc. all along the Bedford Highway itself.

True, but I didn't mention it as walking conditions are not so good there. You have bicycle lanes, but typically I see pedestrians walking in the dirt to avoid getting run over by cyclists. Getting across the Bedford Highway as a pedestrian isn't for the faint-hearted either...

But, yes, there are some good shops along there in Clearwater and the Fisherman's Market (it would be a great location for seafood lovers), etc., plus there is some retail opening up in the old Travelers Motel and that new aesthetically-challenged building next store.

[Keith P.]

Guess what?

Delayed for two months while staff do more work. Why, you ask?

VIEW PLANES!

Well, they don't actually exist in law. But condo owners in behind this site on Bedros Lane have a view of the Basin at present, which may or may not go away if this is built as designed. So staff are being asked to determine how much of their view will disappear.

Read it and weep, here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ondo-1.3399288

All together now, on three: "It's TOO TALL!!!"

[Hali87]

I wonder if they actually use the term "view planes" anywhere else in the world? These are technically just "views" IMO.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

True, but I didn't mention it as walking conditions are not so good there. You have bicycle lanes, but typically I see pedestrians walking in the dirt to avoid getting run over by cyclists. Getting across the Bedford Highway as a pedestrian isn't for the faint-hearted either...

But, yes, there are some good shops along there in Clearwater and the Fisherman's Market (it would be a great location for seafood lovers), etc., plus there is some retail opening up in the old Travelers Motel and that new aesthetically-challenged building next store.

There are also little strips in Rockingham (around Flamingo Dr, etc.) and Birch Cove. They're not "the absolute most pleasant and convenient places to walk" but I spent a lot of time in this area growing up and it was not uncommon for us to walk down from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods once in a while.

[halifaxboyns]

This delay is mostly thanks to my mom's condo building and the one next to her. She didn't sign the petition that was going to this council meeting (that I know of) but they were mounting a pretty big opposition.

When I was home she introduced me to some folks and they bitched and moaned about this proposal. I just said - did you buy the land to prevent development? Then get over it - anyone can apply and seek Council's permission. Your views were not and never will be protected - they are a bonus.

I just finished up an appeal here in Calgary on the very same issue - was in the Calgary herald - we get the decision back Thursday.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There are also little strips in Rockingham (around Flamingo Dr, etc.) and Birch Cove. They're not "the absolute most pleasant and convenient places to walk" but I spent a lot of time in this area growing up and it was not uncommon for us to walk down from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods once in a while.

It's doable, but not ideal. I've walked along the Bedford Highway in the pre-bike-lane days and it was no problem walking along the shoulder facing traffic. Crossing was no problem at controlled intersections either. However, crossing in some areas (like near the Esquire Motel and Restaurant) are dicey at times.

The reality is that most people living there will likely drive their cars to wherever they want to go and will walk for exercise (or their dog's exercise) rather than necessity. People who want to live a car-free life will likely pick downtown or at least an area with more walkable amenities (like Clayton Park, for example) rather than near the old Bedford/Halifax boundary.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Guess what?

Delayed for two months while staff do more work. Why, you ask?

VIEW PLANES!

Well, they don't actually exist in law. But condo owners in behind this site on Bedros Lane have a view of the Basin at present, which may or may not go away if this is built as designed. So staff are being asked to determine how much of their view will disappear.

Read it and weep, here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ondo-1.3399288

All together now, on three: "It's TOO TALL!!!"

Honestly I don't know why they are surprised. I've noticed on several occasions condo buildings or other dwellings that had a great view when they were built only to have something built in front of it after the fact. It's the way it goes when you live in a city. I've often thought it's actually planned that way to sell the earlier built places easier, with the buyers thinking that they will have this great view (or greenbelt behind their home...) only to have it not turn out the way they thought it would.

In this case I think it is ridiculous, especially since Bedros Lane condos will still have some view of the Bedford Basin or further up towards the bridges. There may be a few units that lose a significant part of their view, but really, did they think the Bluenose Motel was going to be there forever?

I really don't think they should have a leg to stand on, in this case.

[Keith P.]

^^^ It's really not surprising to me either, but more for the reason that you can be pretty sure Council members will pander to anyone in order to make them at least think they are on their side. At worst, it ends up costing us money, as happened today when they voted against the Fire chief's proposal thanks to heavy lobbying by the Firefighters Union. Can't P.O. the union boys!

Is there any member of Council who you could possibly support if they ran for mayor? It seems to me they all have some pretty significant liabilities.

[jslath]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder if they actually use the term "view planes" anywhere else in the world? These are technically just "views" IMO.

Yes, the term view planes is more common than you think or want to believe. It's definitely not unique to Halifax and Dartmouth.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder if they actually use the term "view planes" anywhere else in the world? These are technically just "views" IMO.

In Vancouver it's "view cones", but the idea is the same.

[Jonovision]

And views of the Palace of Westminster and St Paul's are protected that cover very long swaths through the city of London.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

And views of the Palace of Westminster and St Paul's are protected that cover very long swaths through the city of London.

London is obviously anti-development.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

London is obviously anti-development.

Yup. That's why it so far behind the times, a mere backwater that will never become a world class city.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

And views of the Palace of Westminster and St Paul's are protected that cover very long swaths through the city of London.

The graphic can be misleading. Not to mention the issue of the Heathrow flightpath over the centre of the city
More info here : http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...ow-interactive

[Hali87]

My main point though was that "view planes" is an arbitrary-sounding enough term that now people here are conflating "View planes" (legally protected) with "view planes" from the window of their condo or a private courtyard. I doubt you hear people in Vancouver complaining that "the new development will block their view cone" but I could be wrong.

The reason this matters is because there's surely already a bit of confusion via the media about what is/isn't protected in Halifax, and what the "actual" viewplanes are, why they exist, and what they mean. The "Armdale Rotary viewplane" would be an example where there was a point where it seemed like it was being treated as a legally protected view when I'm not sure that it was (or why it would be/would have been)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

My main point though was that "view planes" is an arbitrary-sounding enough term that now people here are conflating "View planes" (legally protected) with "view planes" from the window of their condo or a private courtyard. I doubt you hear people in Vancouver complaining that "the new development will block their view cone" but I could be wrong.

The reason this matters is because there's surely already a bit of confusion via the media about what is/isn't protected in Halifax, and what the "actual" viewplanes are, why they exist, and what they mean. The "Armdale Rotary viewplane" would be an example where there was a point where it seemed like it was being treated as a legally protected view when I'm not sure that it was (or why it would be/would have been)

You can almost hear them think... "view planes, eh?... seemed to work for the downtown, so let's give it a go..."

[Hali87]

I think it's more common for someone to see a single article mentioning "Development application rejected due to blocked viewplane", and then a building is proposed near them, and they think "hey, this is gonna block MY viewplane!"

I can't imagine the same happening with "viewcone", or "legally protected view".

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You can almost hear them think... "view planes, eh?... seemed to work for the downtown, so let's give it a go..."

The problem is when it does start to work... and then "friends of something" begin shouting with them. #pavillionatsouthpark.

[Dmajackson]

This proposal was amended to be 8 storeys tall. According to Global News Morning the new proposal was approved last night at NWCC.

[Corker]

So this site is in the news... I don't know what status the redevelopment approval is at, but the owner, Anthony Goshen, is eviting the long term rentals so that they can 'retire' the property.

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/new...ice-100720582/