HURST: How to rid downtown of its perpetual frown

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Are you talking about the Nova Centre blocks? Isn't there a decent amount of underground parking included in that project?

Waterfront Development Corporation parking lots.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I also don't agree with the point about development speed. The evidence of our eyes is that downtown is finally developing after 25 years of no new buildings of note.

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Maybe—or maybe they're looking to be kowtowed to, knowing that if they kick up a fuss and blame the city for their troubles, there are a lot of citizens who will follow suit. It's not just in Halifax that (some, not all of course) developers believe the city should kowtow to them. Chedrawe even balked at DRC suggestions, and it's not like Halifax has an especially intense DRC.

[halifaxboyns]

I think Waye is meaning the waterfront parking lots owned by WDCL (Waterfront Development Corporation Limited) - as they disappear, there may be a parking problem.

Waye makes an interesting point and Someone123 also brings up something interesting. With the Nova Centre, there will be a significant 3 level parkade included with the proposal. So when you factor that Metro Park won't be leaving and then the 3 levels of parking with Nova Centre (in combination with the casino and the Scotia Square Parking) I'd be comfortable in saying there should be more than enough. If worse comes to worse, people can park at Park Lane and if I remember correctly the SGR parking lots actually have to replace the parking they will eventually take away.

I definitely disagree with using Cogswell for another parkade...that (frankly is a dumb idea)...given this is some of the most valuable land. Now if you wanted to require any development there to put in additional parking underground, then that's okay. But I remind everyone, we don't build cities for cars we build them for people. The downtown isn't just going to be fixed over night - it took us 40 years to destroy downtown, it will take just as long to fix it.

Waye's comment about the speed of development is also one I disagree with the writer about. For the most part, I think HbD is working and working well - but there is always that lag time between new rules coming into place and staff becoming comfortable with them. I think 90 days is frankly a really shallow time period and I don't know if that was the right amount. 3 months to process a 20 storey building seems to be a stretch from my perspective as a planner and that's assuming everything falls into place. I think 180 days is more reasonable, particularly if there are issues with contamination or other issues (since much of downtown had some industrial uses in the early 20's - contamination is a potential factor). This way, if it ends up that you do get stuff done in less than 180 days - that's a huge success. I suspect the same issue will come up once the Centre Plan is approved; there will be that lag time of learning.

The shuttle idea is interesting and quite timely considering that Metro Transit is proposing to cut the route 8 - the waterfront route due to poor ridership. That was Dawn Sloane's idea and frankly I think it's quite good, but ridership is a funny thing. My suggestion would be that if the downtown business association wants such a shuttle, they put their money where their mouth is and help fund it, specially if the ridership of the 8 is an indication of success. This may be an opportunity to revive FRED as a year round entity, assuming the DT Business Association and a few other cough up some $.

But where I do agree (either partially or completely) is with his points on heritage, the triangle lands and transportation alternatives. LRT typically doesn't really get financially viable until a population around 600,000 - I think you could make it work at 550, but then question becomes how well? We need to start planning for this now - that should be a part of the next RP update (frankly it should've been in the RP from the get go). Frankly, I think a new RP is necessary given we've already updated the population trends once already. I suspect at RP+10, we will be revising it upward again...so why not do a new plan. The current RP is good - it was a good first time plan (we never had an RP before)...but we've learned a lot since then and it needs and can be better (no plan is perfect). That or do a new transportation component, but something needs to be considered. Whether it's LRT, streetcars or fast ferries.

The triangle land is unfortunate and the fact is that cities in North America are stuck with parking lots because developers submit proposals and sit on them (lest we forget Twisted Sisters) because they make more $ with parking lots. So if we want them to develop - maybe they do need to be taxed higher in the core? That's one option... The other thing is heritage and I agree, it has to be a balance. If an owner won't maintain a building - is it really worth keeping in such poor condition? But if an owner is willing to maintain a heritage building or better yet designate it - then there should be some sort of reward. Is that more density? More height? I don't know - maybe a tax deferral during construction?

As a planner, I'm no expert on taxes but one thing I'd like to suggest for the Regional Core is some sort of study to see what impact there would be on properties that had their property taxes deferred for 3 years once construction of a new development commenced (meaning existing building demo'ed, underground footings put in and construction on the future building commenced). If that isn't a good stimulus for construction, I'm not sure what else would be.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Is it really a problem - or was their some unique circumstances in these particular cases that were outside of the norm?

Better yet, did we setup an unreasonable expectation in the first place? Is it reasonable to assume that a building like the Roy/Trillium (15+ stories) can be approved in 90 days? Or are those more like 180 days?

Perhaps the scale should be adjusted depending on the complexity of the project. So something like Drum might fit within the 90-120 day mark, while a Trillium is 180 days. Setting targets is frankly dangerous because when the target isn't met with a couple one offs, the development community loses their minds. I think in these cases there was probably something that came up that was outside the norm...

I'd also say that staff are still learning the ropes of HbD as new regulation typically takes a least 2-3 good years of constant interpretation to finally get into memory. Not everyone is a freak like myself, who had most of the important sections of the Calgary Land Use Bylaw in memory within weeks.

[someone123]

Yeah, the Waye's WDCL post is perfectly clear to me now and relates directly to the article. I was just having some reading comprehension issues last night I guess.

I hope Halifax experiences the "problem" of disappearing waterfront parking lots. There's been comparatively little development of those lots since they were cleared in the 70's.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I hope Halifax experiences the "problem" of disappearing waterfront parking lots. There's been comparatively little development of those lots since they were cleared in the 70's.

Yeah, exactly my thoughts...

And high density development, that would be a miracle. I still can't believe they shut down the centennial development, it was actually likely to proceed.

My hope for Halifax is that it continues to develop with surprises like the Citadel hotel, but also development on empty lots.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Yeah, exactly my thoughts...

And high density development, that would be a miracle. I still can't believe they shut down the centennial development, it was actually likely to proceed.

My hope for Halifax is that it continues to develop with surprises like the Citadel hotel, but also development on empty lots.

I'm sure that Phil and his 'flock' had a small heart attack on that one...that's my hope as well and the dialogue drawing that was posted in another thread is an interesting interpretation of HbD's road layout and the potential future. If we saw even half of that occur, I'd be delighted.

But definitely the public transit angle has to be dealt with sooner rather than later...

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by someone123

Are you talking about the Nova Centre blocks? Isn't there a decent amount of underground parking included in that project?

I think transit service is the only way to make a dramatic difference at this point, particularly when you factor in the drawbacks of structured parking (in the case of the MetroPark, half of a block is given up for cars). As cities grow, there's more demand for the most desirable areas and cars gradually become less viable as a way to move people around. Part of the issue right now is that residents of the city (some councillors, business owners, and average people) need to adjust their expectations, and the "where do we park?" question needs to be recast as "how do we help people get where they want to go as efficiently as possible?"

No, ooops - Waterfront Development lots. Just spent 5 days in Vancouver - subway, ferry, bus, bikelanes, and also - multistory car parks. One right hard up against gastown. Parking is part of the picture, but in an urban environment free parking on the street in front of the bar/restaurant/shop isn't.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I'm sure that Phil and his 'flock' had a small heart attack on that one...that's my hope as well and the dialogue drawing that was posted in another thread is an interesting interpretation of HbD's road layout and the potential future. If we saw even half of that occur, I'd be delighted.

But definitely the public transit angle has to be dealt with sooner rather than later...

Given Halifax's record, I have complete confidence that council will properly invest in transit and spend money on a stadium.

[teddifax]

What Centennial development was shut down?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

No, ooops - Waterfront Development lots. Just spent 5 days in Vancouver - subway, ferry, bus, bikelanes, and also - multistory car parks. One right hard up against gastown. Parking is part of the picture, but in an urban environment free parking on the street in front of the bar/restaurant/shop isn't.

I live in Vancouver. The old parkades along Water Street date to the 60's and 70's and stick out like a sore thumb. They've probably survived only because that area's a little rough and not very desirable (although it has improved post-Woodwards). It is common here for new buildings to incorporate underground or (rarely) above ground structured parking, but I'm not aware of any single-use parkades built here during the last decade. They are probably not permitted.

The key thing in Vancouver is that over 30% of commuters here take transit. Downtown that's more like > 50% transit, plus there's a much larger share of people walking to work (way, way more local residential) and biking (using real biking infrastructure). No amount of parkades could make up for this gap in modal shares with Halifax, and there would be no practical way to add the necessary road capacity. You just couldn't build a downtown Vancouver the way it is with the same nice mix of office/residential and public space if most people had to drive, but this is the situation Halifax is trapped in by its lack of transit infrastructure. I'm not against parking, but I think at this point it will only have a minor impact on the fate of the downtown compared to transit and residential infill. There probably also aren't many specific cases where the downtown would be better-served by a parkade than an apartment building or condo with more residential units and a smaller number of public underground spaces.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

When you have people like Danny Chedrawe and Gary Hurst saying essentially the same things about the development process, the issue isn't one of disagreeing - it is a real issue. HRM has a problem and Council & staff need to fix that.

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction. Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.

And any transition to site plan approval is going to both upset the apple cart of heritage/anti development folks and some developers - they no longer can influence what happens on a building site as they once could under MPS amendments/DAs.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction. Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.

And any transition to site plan approval is going to both upset the apple cart of heritage/anti development folks and some developers - they no longer can influence what happens on a building site as they once could under MPS amendments/DAs.

Exactly what I was saying - although I still think a 90 day turn around is probably to low of a time. A higher timeframe for more complex files or even a general 180 day time frame seems more realistic.

I've always wondered why, even when the zoning is in place, an appeals process is available in the HbD but not in other areas. For those who may not be aware - when a site is zoned outside of HbD, if I apply as of right for a use allowed in the zone, there is no appeal rights to neighbours. If I meet all the rules and don't require variances, there is no appeal rights at all. Yet, in HbD (assuming you were to meet every rule) - you would have a right to appeal. That really doesn't make sense to me...but if the transition to site plan approval occurs, then there wouldn't be one...so I'm all for that.

This is something to keep on the radar for the Regional Centre plan as well - let's not add a complex layer when it doesn't exist now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Excellent info here.

[beyeas]

This has actually been one of the more informative and constructive threads in a while! :-)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Gary is not a developer. Danny got approval in 5.5 months. In cities that are booming, like Vancouver, they still have developers complaining about process, even though everywhere you look there is construction.

Both have access to large sums of money and both own significant real estate in the downtown core. Those are the people that Council should be bowing and scraping to, doing everything in their power to get them to build something. Unlike Vancouver, we do not have construction happening everywhere you look.

Just because a developer is unhappy does not necessarily mean there is a system failure. Also, does not mean there is NOT a system failure. You need to be cautious. Sometimes planning working properly will result in a developer not being allowed to do what they want. It is not about satisfying the land owners every wish, it is about achieving outcomes.

Planning perfection for its own sake is not the objective here. The objective ought to be getting the bombed-out downtown less bombed-out. I get Gary's criticism of Reznick - sitting on the Roy Bldg for so long makes an entire block look like Detroit, especially when the other side has been under construction forever by the same developer. The same problem with the awful NFB/Khyber.empty lot stretch - simply disgraceful. Council should be doing whatever it takes to get developers moving, not sitting back and saying "we've got a good process, deal with it".

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Both have access to large sums of money and both own significant real estate in the downtown core. Those are the people that Council should be bowing and scraping to, doing everything in their power to get them to build something. Unlike Vancouver, we do not have construction happening everywhere you look.

Council shouldn't be bowing and scraping to anyone. Waye is right--developers in every city everywhere in the world complain about the approvals process, just as residents in every neighbourhood in every city in the world can turn NIMBY in an instant when a project they don't like springs up on their block. Council should do more to facilitate and encourage development, but fast-tracking developments that aren't good enough isn't in the city's long-term interest.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Planning perfection for its own sake is not the objective here. The objective ought to be getting the bombed-out downtown less bombed-out. I get Gary's criticism of Reznick - sitting on the Roy Bldg for so long makes an entire block look like Detroit, especially when the other side has been under construction forever by the same developer. The same problem with the awful NFB/Khyber.empty lot stretch - simply disgraceful. Council should be doing whatever it takes to get developers moving, not sitting back and saying "we've got a good process, deal with it".

Again, downtown isn't bombed out. PLEASE go to Detroit.Once you see Detroit with your own eyes, you will never draw a Halifax-Motown comparison ever again.

But yes, you're right that more can be done on the city's part to encourage better and quicker development. BUT, that doesn't mean rubber stamping whatever Danny Chedrawe or Gary Hurst or anyone else want to build without casting a critical eye.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Council shouldn't be bowing and scraping to anyone. Waye is right--developers in every city everywhere in the world complain about the approvals process, just as residents in every neighbourhood in every city in the world can turn NIMBY in an instant when a project they don't like springs up on their block.

Complaining usually isn't related to whether or not somebody's getting a "fair" deal (note that "fair" is inherently subjective anyway), it's related to whether or not they think they can get a better deal, regardless of how good their current arrangement is. Private developers and NIMBYs will push until they get their way 100% of the time. San Francisco, NIMBY central, was down to a net increase of a couple hundred units in 2011 for a city with almost a million people.

The CRTC and cellular providers are a great example of the same phenomenon -- any attempt to reform the industry is met with opposition, even though it is much more heavily slanted against consumers in Canada than in other countries.

The gold standard when it comes to tracking the success of a development process is to look at how much construction is happening. Halifax has been seeing a lot of construction lately. The per capita value of building permits is actually in the same ballpark now as Vancouver, and this likely translates into a lot more building when you correct for the difference in housing prices.

[halifaxboyns]

Just to put some of the fights about HRM's evolution - have a look at this. Bet you never expected some of the comments coming out of this meeting to be people in Vancouver!