HRM Regional Plan

[halifaxboyns]

HRM's current regional plan became effective on August 26, 2006 and will remain in place for 25 years. The current plan will then expire on August 26, 2031 (so a long way's off).

As part of the plan's population projections, it saw that at the end of the regional plan the population could increase by 52,000 people (low end scenario), 84,400 (mid range scenario) and 125,000 people (high end scenario). The population (it notes) in 2001 was 359,090, but I will assume it based those numbers on whatever the population was in 2006 which according to wiki was 372,679.

Based on that number, by 2031 we could see a population of:
424,679 low growth;
457,079 mid range growth;or
497,679 high growth.

The plan talks about how much land is necessary to accommodate that growth up to 2031, transportation infrastructure upgrades necessary, new parks, etc. The plan also notes that the regional centre has begun to grow again (at the time the report was written) mainly due to infilling (like Trillium and the Hollis Building, but I would assume also from new infill single detached dwellings too), but that the majority of growth is in greenfield subdivisions.

The plan also sets up the urban settlement pattern (see the maps) and notes that there are six sites for new urban growth (which should be enough when combined with infilling) to support growth for the plan period (until 2031). This areas are:

1. Bedford South;
2. Morris-Russel Lake;
3. Bedford West;
4. Port Wallis;
5. Sandy Lake; and
6. Highway 102 west corridor adjacent to Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes Park.

The reason I'm starting this thread is to get people thinking ahead to 2031 and think about how the city will grow. Based on the current growth; I'm suspecting that we'll easily blow past the low growth and end up between the mid to high range; although I'd love to see it blow past the high range too.

What will we need in the future for the next 25 years after this plan (from 2031 to 2056)? Will Bedford or Sackville need a commons park? What residential areas will be required to support growth? Will the gap between development focusing in greenfield areas get narrowed so that more focus is on the urban core? How will the upcoming population shift with babyboomer retirements change things?

I'd also like people to consider some interesting facts that HRM posted about the plan:

• Out of a population of 350K, there were only 58 speakers at the public hearing (that is sad);
• There was only 112 public submissions that required additional comments (yet again sad).

I mention these because these issues are important; despite what people may think. So how can we get more people engaged in these discussions? More meetings? More open houses? What about other ways to engage people like through facebook, twitter or an online forum? Or perhaps like Plan It Calgary, with summits and major workshops to build the community vision and get some speakers to do a speaking series like this guy.

Something for all of us to consider. The regional plan can be viewed here.

[someone123]

They used 2001 census data. The population lately has been growing much faster than anticipated (estimated 400,000 sometime in 2009-2010). It is very possible that the population will hit 425,000 (low growth scenario) by 2016 or so, which definitely puts things on the high growth track.

The urban core has been growing for a while. It started shrinking in the 1950s (slum clearance) and seems to have bottomed out in the early-mid 90s. A lot of the decline happening now is in older single family suburban areas like the West End where there is very little infill. The inner city areas like Gottingen are growing quickly and have been growing for a few census periods.

I would like to see construction of a third bridge and a bridge over the Northwest Arm, plus maybe a second small pedestrian/bicycle bridge. The next ten years or so are also the time to be planning for light rail.

[halifaxboyns]

If the population scenario was based on 2001 then it would breakdown:

• Low Growth = 411,090;
• Medium Growth = 443,490; and
• High Growth = 484,090.

I can easily see ending up in the high growth range.
The plan will require a new transportation map and certainly the ring road concept that was proposed in an alternate string would be an interesting idea for that.

If the 3rd crossing was a bridge, I'd want it to have a pedestrian/bike component - but the same would be true for a tunnel as well.

I still think regional rail could be on the table - but definately an LRT or some form of rapid transit will need to be considered. The BRTs (Metro Link) have already established some high traffic corridors for the initial lines, so a more detailed exercise would be needed.

I'd like to see the list of opportunity sites explored. I don't think the sites they showed on the opportunity site map were a complete list and certainly didn't take into account the possibility of higher density corridors along Quinpool or Agricola (which could also add to the potential for an LRT corridor).

[someone123]

The third bridge plan is for a 6 lane crossing which would include bus lanes each way and pedestrian access. A tunnel would be okay but much more expensive for the same size. It was presented as an alternative but only with 4 lanes total.

Metro transit still needs a few more BRT routes and an overhauled bus system which seems to be in the process of happening. From there chunks can be improved with rail. A first step for LRT could be just a small system in the downtown area to move people between transit terminals and nearby destinations - this would be immediately useful and not overly involved.

I would really like to see transit used as a tool to intensify development in key neighbourhoods that today are a little too far outside the core to be desirable and fully pedestrian-oriented. Young Street is a good example of this - imagine how many people would like to live in the far North End if you didn't need a car and could get downtown in 5-10 mins.

The bridge is similar. If a third crossing were built Eastern Passage would be comparable to Clayton Park.

[halifaxboyns]

Something that has come up in the Airport Construction thread; is the issue of the 'style of HRM'. I've mentioned a few times before that Vancouver Airport's Skytrain Station for the Canada line employed a lot of design styles that fit the Vancouver and BC style of architecture (land, sea and sky).

Planarchy mentioned that an architect in town (Lyons) was trying to bring back focus to the issue of HRM's style and really get people on board.

One suggestion I briefly made in the post, which I'm going to expand upon in here is this idea of HRM's style or vision. Having helped out with the Plan It Calgary exercise, I wasn't around for the visioning exercise that happened before it, but it certainly holds merit. It was called ImagineCalgary and this is a link to their website in case anyone wants to take a look. The goal was to create a long term vision for how the city grew, but I think it can also include some broad concepts like design and what HRM's design feel should be. It may only be applicable (initially) to say Municipal Projects, but could also apply to more stuff if you get many people on board.

Imagine Calgary was the exercise that occured prior to Plan It Calgary and the vision from Imagine was used to help create the Plan It Calgary MDP (Municipal Development Plan); which is the same thing as a regional plan. My suggestion for the next regional plan would be to have this visioning exercise prior to commencing the regional plan - this could help shape a lot of the discussion on how HRM grows (out versus up) and could also create specific targets that would make the regional plan easier to measure in terms of success or failure. Not to say the current one doesn't, but for me, I like hard numbers versus soft policy; especially when it comes to density.

This visioning exercise (in Calgary's case) took 18 months; so you'd have to factor that into the time it takes to do the next Regional Plan; but may be worth some value to deal with some broad issues.

[halifaxboyns]

Someone123 and I have been discussing downtown density and adding population to downtown core of greater HRM (so I would call it Downtown Dartmouth and Halifax).

Would it not be appropriate for the regional plan to set population targets? I know Dartmouth Downtown had population targets which aren't being met (as per the staff report on the highrise development case).

Something to consider.

[halifaxboyns]

I was going back through some of the discussion threads and looking at discussion about urban sprawl.

Many of us have pointed out that its cheaper for office development to occur out in the suburbs (Bayers Lake, Burnside) because of the ability to have a sea of parking for these uses - you could be an office building an have a surface parking lot for 500 cars as an example. This head lead into a few comments and discussions about how do we make transit more attractive and curb urban sprawl.

I was thinking and I believe I posted in one thread the idea of setting maximum limits of parking for suburban office development, as a means to do a few things:

• Try to level the playing field between Downtown office development and suburban (you can't have big parking lots anymore);
• Attempt to promote more use of transit;
• push people to develop offices not necessairily in the downtown core, but in other opportunity areas such as Young/Robie; the Quinpool Corridor or the Agricola Corridors (as examples).

This way; the bylaw parking requirement would get turned around - instead of saying you need a minimum number of stalls based on the gross floor area of the building footprint (usually 1 stall per 100 sq. feet of GFA is a typical standard); you could turn the requirement around and say that the maximum parking permitted is 1 stall per X square feet of GFA to a set maximum. Research would have to be done to figure out the typical ratio of parking and what an appropriate maximum would be - I'm thinking 55 to 65% of the typical average. So if most places (on average) build 500 stalls, you would get between 275 to 325 stalls.

What does everyone think?

[Northend Guy]

From the News957 web site:

Halifax businesses to curb sprawl
Desiree Finhert May 16, 2011 10:33:46 AM
0
The Downtown Halifax Business Commission foresees soaring tax rates and a bankrupt city if urban sprawl is left unchecked.

Executive director, Paul MacKinnon, suggested Halifax should look at how Ontario managed its sprawl in the Greater Toronto Area, as stakeholders prepare to review Halifax Regional Municipality's five-year regional plan.

"The scale of our suburban development is very costly to all taxpayers," MacKinnon told News 95.7, Monday. "That's basically why there isn't money to do things like improving the downtown, improving lighting, improving sidewalks and the pedestrian environment."

"We're simply focusing our money and our energy into building sprawl," continued MacKinnon. "As long as we continue to do that, there's not going to be money to do anything else and it's really going to bankrupt this city."

MacKinnon echoes the message from environmental lawyer David Donnelly and author Bruce Lourie, from Toronto, who spoke during the 10th-annual Carmichael Lecture, in Halifax Thursday.

The two told their audience Toronto was experiencing the same situation that Halifax is currently in, where developers were buying farm and forest lands outside the city, forcing the city to build highways, interchanges and extend other infrastructure at the taxpayers' expense.

"It was costing existing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars," Donnelly told Maritime Morning, Monday.

He points to the McGuinty government's implementation of the Greenbelt which prohibits development in certain areas, thus keeping it within the city limits.

Lourie said there is a misconception that suburban taxes support the hub.

"The very little bit of preliminary work we've done shows it's the opposite, and the opposite to a huge extent," Lourie told Maritime Morning. "People living in downtown Halifax are the ones who are subsidizing the sprawl."

He suggested the tax structure encourages people to build outside the city.

[halifaxboyns]

In Oregon - they have what they call an 'urban growth boundairy'. So as it was described in an episode of E Squared (from PBS) - it's a line on a map that allows urbanization as of right. You can do it - but you need to negotiate the level of urbanization (high density versus low or medium).

Everything outside of the urban growth boundary is retained for agriculture and for natural parks/natural features.

I've believed for a long time that Nova Scotia needs to implement something like that for HRM and perhaps some of the growing smaller towns.

[HRM]

Something like that would and will never fly in Halifax. Not as long as Halifax exists post amalgamation. Rural/suburban city counciillors and provincial MLAs (who ultimately control the agenda) will never give up the ability to continue to build their own little fiefdoms.

I'm gonna have to change my handle one of these days. I now refuse to to use the names Halifax Regional Municipality or HRM - my own personal inclination that including the word "regional" in the name has emboldened rural/suburban councillors to bulk up the periphery to the detriment of the old city of Halifax. It's now all about the "regions" and not the core that subsidizes the services in the regions. Halifax no longer has an identity.

As you can probably tell I live in the core and am sick and tired of crumbling roads, crumbling schools and lousy services. When I leave the old city of Halifax all I see are new schools, great roads and brand new community centres and other facilities that my $7,000 a year in property taxes are paying for.

[RyeJay]

Urban sprawl is not only killing our city--it's killing the remainder of Nova Scotia's forests. If the environmental concerns don't concern you, I would hope that locals at least care about the forestry sector in this province!!!

Halifax desperately needs to adopt measures as the GTA has. Perhaps THEN Halifax would have a more equal opportunity to compete with Canada's other urban centres--instead of financially bleeding to death for the sake of the Halifax "REGIONAL" Municipality.

I dare say: Bedford, Sackville, and every other bedroom community attached to Nova Scotia's CAPTIAL...need to get over themselves. Now, don't get me wrong; these communities can work quite well WITH peninsular Halifax as suburban alternatives. KEY WORD: alternatives. At some point, even people not living on the peninsula have to acknowledge how EMBARRASSINGLY slow progress has been for what is suppose to be Nova Scotia's biggest BRAND.

When asked "Where are you from?" People respond: Halifax.

Yes, this is about pride. But this is also, much more, about economics.

[someone123]

I also dislike the "Halifax Regional Municipality" moniker and all the rhetoric about a "community of communities" etc.

There seems to be an implication that somehow Halifax is not a normal city but rather a collection of equal "communities" that each deserve equal attention. This is not true.

Amalgamation could have worked well for coordinating development and avoiding "race to the bottom" type bidding wars between municipalities but in the case of HRM we seem to have gotten a kind of worst-case scenario.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Urban sprawl is not only killing our city--it's killing the remainder of Nova Scotia's forests. If the environmental concerns don't concern you, I would hope that locals at least care about the forestry sector in this province!!!

Halifax desperately needs to adopt measures as the GTA has. Perhaps THEN Halifax would have a more equal opportunity to compete with Canada's other urban centres--instead of financially bleeding to death for the sake of the Halifax "REGIONAL" Municipality.

I dare say: Bedford, Sackville, and every other bedroom community attached to Nova Scotia's CAPTIAL...need to get over themselves. Now, don't get me wrong; these communities can work quite well WITH peninsular Halifax as suburban alternatives. KEY WORD: alternatives. At some point, even people not living on the peninsula have to acknowledge how EMBARRASSINGLY slow progress has been for what is suppose to be Nova Scotia's biggest BRAND.

When asked "Where are you from?" People respond: Halifax.

Yes, this is about pride. But this is also, much more, about economics.

Unfortunately there is virtually no old growth forest in NS... in fact, almost every tree in NS has been cut down before at least once. The forestry industry is down due to decreased demand from the US.

But, I agree in terms of what you are saying about the urban vs. forest environments and we need a green belt around this city so that development money can be concentrated internally instead of constant sprawl.

Development needs to be steamlined as well. Looking at the southern skyline pictures is almost embarassing. Every building is in the 10-12 story range aside from Fenwick. That simply isn't sustainable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

When asked "Where are you from?" People respond: Halifax.

Only Halifax is at all interesting from even a national Canadian perspective. Nobody goes to Nova Scotia to visit Sackville and go to Staples and Tim Hortons.

When it comes to attracting talent, many will only move to cities that offer a lifestyle that cannot be found in the suburbs. These people can move wherever they want, including places with pedestrian-friendly historic neighbourhoods with great local culture, dining options, etc.

Even if we focus only on residents, many projects in the core are of regional interest while others are purely local. Community Centre #24 is only useful to a neighbourhood while a new museum or central library can be visited by everybody. Good downtown shopping is unique while streetscaping on Herring Cove Road is purely for locals -- nobody's driving 30 minutes to go see a new sidewalk by the Sobeys. HRM council seems very parochial and has a hard time with this.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Unfortunately there is virtually no old growth forest in NS... in fact, almost every tree in NS has been cut down before at least once. The forestry industry is down due to decreased demand from the US.

From my understanding, the industry was mainly failing due to a lack of resources (as you said, no old growth forests) as opposed to a lack of American demand. To be honest, I think the only place in Nova Scotia where I've personally seen old growth trees was...in Truro. Victoria Park, in this hub town, has am impressive array of mega-tall evergreens.

Development needs to be steamlined as well. Looking at the southern skyline pictures is almost embarassing. Every building is in the 10-12 story range aside from Fenwick. That simply isn't sustainable.

I'm actually proud of Halifax's skyline. Yes, it is comprised of short towers; but I love how Halifax architecturally bows down to Citadel Hill. The building density, however, is something we MUST work on. 10-30 story buildings may be short, but clustered together creates a wonderful scape.

If height is what you thirst for--the most likely breaking point for tall developments would be the Quinpool Road area. Behind our prized colonial fort, we need not worry about viewplanes. A 'highly' developed Quinpool would actually create quite a drastic and unique skyline, in contrast to the downtown.

And speaking of Citadel Hill: If I were a developer with tons of money, I would be interested in building a CN-like tower on Quinpool. Citadel Hill is SPECTACULAR from an aerial perspective.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

Only Halifax is at all interesting from even a national Canadian perspective. Nobody goes to Nova Scotia to visit Sackville and go to Staples and Tim Hortons.

When it comes to attracting talent, many will only move to cities that offer a lifestyle that cannot be found in the suburbs. These people can move wherever they want, including places with pedestrian-friendly historic neighbourhoods with great local culture, dining options, etc.

Yes!! Exactly!!

I know so many people who've moved to downtown Toronto; and many of them have later decided to relocate to t-dot's suburbs. Nova Scotia's focus on peninsular Halifax is NOT negligence of the other regional communities--because they also benefit!!

I'm sick of the sprawl. Same same same.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

From my understanding, the industry was mainly failing due to a lack of resources (as you said, no old growth forests) as opposed to a lack of American demand. To be honest, I think the only place in Nova Scotia where I've personally seen old growth trees was...in Truro. Victoria Park, in this hub town, has am impressive array of mega-tall evergreens.




I'm actually proud of Halifax's skyline. Yes, it is comprised of short towers; but I love how Halifax architecturally bows down to Citadel Hill. The building density, however, is something we MUST work on. 10-30 story buildings may be short, but clustered together creates a wonderful scape.

If height is what you thirst for--the most likely breaking point for tall developments would be the Quinpool Road area. Behind our prized colonial fort, we need not worry about viewplanes. A 'highly' developed Quinpool would actually create quite a drastic and unique skyline, in contrast to the downtown.

And speaking of Citadel Hill: If I were a developer with tons of money, I would be interested in building a CN-like tower on Quinpool. Citadel Hill is SPECTACULAR from an aerial perspective.

(Credit: DJ )


I'm not super proud of this skyline view... I mean maybe if the Fenwick reclad happens and tower taller than Hollis and Morris is built on the lot to the east.

Additionally, the waterfront lot next to NSP really needs something on it.

[someone123]

I like that view. The buildings are not tall but I think both the power plant and Hollis/Morris will turn out to be good buildings.

A tall, thin tower on that stretch of Hollis would be interesting -- and the tower would have excellent views.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

From my understanding, the industry was mainly failing due to a lack of resources (as you said, no old growth forests) as opposed to a lack of American demand. To be honest, I think the only place in Nova Scotia where I've personally seen old growth trees was...in Truro. Victoria Park, in this hub town, has am impressive array of mega-tall evergreens.

I'm actually proud of Halifax's skyline. Yes, it is comprised of short towers; but I love how Halifax architecturally bows down to Citadel Hill. The building density, however, is something we MUST work on. 10-30 story buildings may be short, but clustered together creates a wonderful scape.

If height is what you thirst for--the most likely breaking point for tall developments would be the Quinpool Road area. Behind our prized colonial fort, we need not worry about viewplanes. A 'highly' developed Quinpool would actually create quite a drastic and unique skyline, in contrast to the downtown.

And speaking of Citadel Hill: If I were a developer with tons of money, I would be interested in building a CN-like tower on Quinpool. Citadel Hill is SPECTACULAR from an aerial perspective.

My feeling exactly. Let's play the game the heritage people have been telling us to play. I can't count on two hands how many times I've heard put the towers on Quinpool and Agricola - keep them away from the primary view of the Citadell.

So fine - if that's the game they want played, let's bring the game to them. Make Agricola a huge density corridor (15 storey minimum and then allow height bonusing very much like HbD up to 40 stories and no density cap). Then add a streetcar along the street in and out of downtown going to the waterfront (Hollis inbound and Lower Water Street outbound).

Quinpool - much the same, but keep the height to about 30 stories and no density maximum - this way you can promote and increase service on the route 6 and 20 or people can walk or bike into work.

I'd also suggest (as a way to keep the 'Friends of the commons' on side) that a few mandatory height bonusing things include contributions to an account to help upgrade the commons. The money would only go to it - it's not really like you would any new parkland along these corridors, since the commons is right there.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

My feeling exactly. Let's play the game the heritage people have been telling us to play. I can't count on two hands how many times I've heard put the towers on Quinpool and Agricola - keep them away from the primary view of the Citadell.

So fine - if that's the game they want played, let's bring the game to them. Make Agricola a huge density corridor (15 storey minimum and then allow height bonusing very much like HbD up to 40 stories and no density cap). Then add a streetcar along the street in and out of downtown going to the waterfront (Hollis inbound and Lower Water Street outbound).

Quinpool - much the same, but keep the height to about 30 stories and no density maximum - this way you can promote and increase service on the route 6 and 20 or people can walk or bike into work.

I'd also suggest (as a way to keep the 'Friends of the commons' on side) that a few mandatory height bonusing things include contributions to an account to help upgrade the commons. The money would only go to it - it's not really like you would any new parkland along these corridors, since the commons is right there.

I wish you were right, but those are just tactics they use to prevent development in their own areas.

Do you know how much of a shitstorm Quinpool would be if anything over 5 stories was proposed? People were pissed off just because they wanted to build a small cafe on a parking lot in front of where Great Ocean used to be.

We've already seen obstructionism with a few projects in the North End areas, and that's where the new gen of obstructionists will be coming from.

I donno man, I think everything in Halifax is somewhat off limits. I mean, 6955 would have been incredible at 16 stories, with more parkland at the base... and the residents managed to get that killed.

I'm sorry, but the Quinpool area is going to be NIMBY families with the same old story of "what about the children, etc" and the north end will be the activist/arts community "standing up" to evil developers and "unsustainable height". Dawn Sloane has been quoted as being against tall buildings in the north end.