HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 11:50 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,133
I'm not surprised HTNS showed up to the public meeting. Bev Miller lives a couple of blocks away and probably fears her property tax will go up or something.

I planned to attend this meeting however I had to work a double starting Sunday evening so my body just wouldn't let me get up once I sat down. My comments were going to be;

- The height and density is great for this neighbourhood.
- Mixed retail space is a good idea but larger scale uses should be limited to Agricola. Roberts is better suited for small local convenience.
- The sidewalks on Maynard are very narrow and may not meet accessibility standards.
- There needs to be landscaping and bike racks along Robert.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 12:32 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson
- Mixed retail space is a good idea but larger scale uses should be limited to Agricola. Roberts is better suited for small local convenience.
- The sidewalks on Maynard are very narrow and may not meet accessibility standards.
- There needs to be landscaping and bike racks along Robert.
Definitely agree. Especially about retail; Agricola needs to fill out first and foremost. There's only so much commercial demand in the area, so we might as well keep turning Agricola into the Main Street it's becoming.

I also didn't realize that the project exceeded the allowable zoning. I still support it because I think it's a great project, but I do understand the concern, especially after this week's foolish decision on Wellington Street, that the city is just ignoring its own zoning and approving whatever gets put in front of them. That can't continue.

Still, I like this one, so I still hope it happens. Having it both ways, I guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 1:14 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,491
Preventing developers from building retail on side streets won't necessarily force it to happen on Agricola, particularly if development on side streets is slowed down or halted for relatively minor reasons. Overbuilding retail space isn't necessarily bad either; it drives down rents for businesses.

The zoning thing is a red herring. Zoning is meant to evolve over time, which is why there are processes in place to amend it and issue variances. If anything we should be skeptical of dogmatically following the current planning rules that are in place in the North End because many of them are seriously outdated. A lot of the planning rules the city still has on its books now are the same ones that caused this part of down to seriously decline in the 70's and 80's.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 2:44 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Preventing developers from building retail on side streets won't necessarily force it to happen on Agricola, particularly if development on side streets is slowed down or halted for relatively minor reasons. Overbuilding retail space isn't necessarily bad either; it drives down rents for businesses.

The zoning thing is a red herring. Zoning is meant to evolve over time, which is why there are processes in place to amend it and issue variances. If anything we should be skeptical of dogmatically following the current planning rules that are in place in the North End because many of them are seriously outdated. A lot of the planning rules the city still has on its books now are the same ones that caused this part of down to seriously decline in the 70's and 80's.
Too reasonable. That'll never fly with the Anti-Development Trust.

Save the View from Bev Miller's balcony!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2015, 1:47 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 984
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
It's an idiotic argument... and they should be careful of pointing fingers when they are in the process of installing a halfway house in the transported Morris House a block or so away. I do NOT begrudge the Morris House, or its intended use, and a live within a few blocks of it, but COME ON: live-work townhouses scare families away, but EVERYONE wants to raise kids next door to a halfway house?

Bold Stupidity
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2015, 4:12 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
It's an idiotic argument... and they should be careful of pointing fingers when they are in the process of installing a halfway house in the transported Morris House a block or so away. I do NOT begrudge the Morris House, or its intended use, and a live within a few blocks of it, but COME ON: live-work townhouses scare families away, but EVERYONE wants to raise kids next door to a halfway house?

Bold Stupidity
They're hypocritical morons. Not to be taken seriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2015, 7:03 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
It's an idiotic argument... and they should be careful of pointing fingers when they are in the process of installing a halfway house in the transported Morris House a block or so away. I do NOT begrudge the Morris House, or its intended use, and a live within a few blocks of it, but COME ON: live-work townhouses scare families away, but EVERYONE wants to raise kids next door to a halfway house?

Bold Stupidity
Our neighbourhood of families has a group home and an Elizabeth Fry house. And the Hell's Angels had a home in our residental area and we never had any trouble.
The group home has been there for over 30 years.
Rapists, murderers, wife beaters, drug dealers live everywhere,;including expensive condos and big mansions.
What is wrong with a halfway house ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2015, 7:05 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,094
I think the point is just that there's no more wrong with live/work units than there is with a halfway house, not that there's anything inherently wrong with a halfway house.

That said, there are certainly many (including some forumers here) who believe that those with the means should not have to be exposed to such things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 2:15 AM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Our neighbourhood of families has a group home and an Elizabeth Fry house. And the Hell's Angels had a home in our residental area and we never had any trouble.
The group home has been there for over 30 years.
Rapists, murderers, wife beaters, drug dealers live everywhere,;including expensive condos and big mansions.
What is wrong with a halfway house ?
Nothing is wrong with a halfway house. My point was that the argument that live-work units a couple blocks from an elementary school are anti-family is even less realistic than a stupid argument about a halfway house.

Shows how the HT is reallllllly stretching it on this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 3:25 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,663
More importantly... what does this have to do with heritage or historical viewplanes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 1:03 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
More importantly... what does this have to do with heritage or historical viewplanes?
I can see trying to make the argument for preserving the historic patterns of density. I don't think it is a realistic argument... and kind of misses the part where society and culture evolve, resulting in different living patterns (and responsible for reductions in density as numbers of people per household drop), which should result in new development patterns if we want to keep a healthy city - which, in my opinion, depends on enough people per square kilometer.

So... nothing to do with historical viewplanes... maybe something to do with the heritage neighbourhood fabric of the north end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 2:54 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post

So... nothing to do with historical viewplanes... maybe something to do with the heritage neighbourhood fabric of the north end.
I'd be supportive of that if the proposal actually involved demolishing a bunch of said historical fabric, but like all the other proposals at play in the area right now, it only involves "demolishing" a derelict lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 5:03 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I'd be supportive of that if the proposal actually involved demolishing a bunch of said historical fabric, but like all the other proposals at play in the area right now, it only involves "demolishing" a derelict lot.
That not their argument in this case. It is the ever popular "we're not against development - we're just against THIS development" which is an instant rabbit hole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 6:54 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Our neighbourhood of families has a group home and an Elizabeth Fry house. And the Hell's Angels had a home in our residental area and we never had any trouble.
The group home has been there for over 30 years.
Rapists, murderers, wife beaters, drug dealers live everywhere,;including expensive condos and big mansions.
What is wrong with a halfway house ?
"The group home has been there for over 30 years." 39 years, and it did not go in easily. If you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't know it was there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2015, 4:27 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
That not their argument in this case. It is the ever popular "we're not against development - we're just against THIS development" which is an instant rabbit hole.
I wonder if they'd ever negotiate "if you don't build this one... we won't say anything about the next".

They would come up with another excuse anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2015, 11:55 AM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I'd be supportive of that if the proposal actually involved demolishing a bunch of said historical fabric, but like all the other proposals at play in the area right now, it only involves "demolishing" a derelict lot.
I can't quite follow their "logic."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2015, 1:59 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Here is a rendering from the W.M Fares Group website - http://www.wmfares.com/

The massing looks good. However, I don't like the charcoal coloured corrugated metal on the upper floors. I think that corrugated metal should be a banned exterior cladding. Even vinyl siding looks better than corrugated metal in my opinion.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2015, 5:10 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 985
I very much like the colors of the building, the copper contrasting with the grey and charcoal. Would not be very attractive with beige.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2015, 6:49 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
That not their argument in this case. It is the ever popular "we're not against development - we're just against THIS development" which is an instant rabbit hole.
I think the HT is actually more of a homeowners' club, with a bit of occasional advocacy for some heritage buildings. They are more or less a BANANA group that is looking for zero growth in the urban core.

What annoys me about them is that they conflate heritage protection and NIMBYism. Empty gravel lots in the North End are not heritage assets. It would be better if there were another heritage group or if the Heritage Trust had a clearer mandate covering only architecture and public spaces.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2015, 9:33 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Here is a rendering from the W.M Fares Group website - http://www.wmfares.com/

The massing looks good. However, I don't like the charcoal coloured corrugated metal on the upper floors. I think that corrugated metal should be a banned exterior cladding. Even vinyl siding looks better than corrugated metal in my opinion.

How come Fares didn't make a big offer for that cheap crappy looking D - Autopro steel covered two bit car repair business eyesore next door ? That block needs serious demolition work instead of spot rezoning.
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 3:50 AM.

     

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