General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

I still don't know what it refers to. That empty lot on Wyse Rd near the bridge is owned by a PEI businessman who had plans to develop it. But it would be commercial development, not what some Soviet-style planner deems the lot should look like.

Why are our tax dollars being used to derail potential investment?

The same holds true for Skye - Tax revenue for it is estimated at $6 million annually. Yet the czar deems it "Too TALL!" and demands that it be cut in half. Meanwhile the lot sits abandoned, decrepit, and empty, generating virtually no tax revenue for the city and keeping the downtown core looking like an empty battle zone. Totally ridiculous.

[Pete Crawford]

I would really appreciate it if anyone could take (and post) a picture of the progress being made on the new commercial area on Portland Street - the one in front of the Superstore where the former Mazda and Subaru dealerships were.

I grew up in Portland Estates but now live overseas, would be great to see it.

[someone123]

Yeah, that's strange. It sounds like some kind of planning meeting where they had information about the 24 floor proposal? Not the finest piece of journalistic work.

What worries me is the attitude that the grand planning exercises are what is allowing the city to develop and improve. That's not true. Developers are building the new housing and office buildings to satisfy demand and they would be doing this with or without HbD sketches and maps. For the most part HRM's role in the past has been to put the breaks on development, and it's not clear that exercises like HbD have resulted in superior designs than what otherwise would have been built. As we have seen with the YMCA proposal at least part of the HbD process was derailed almost from the beginning. The Design Review Committee was intended to be a way to get professional feedback to improve designs but in that case it was basically turned into "Heritage Advisory Committee B".

In Halifax there's a view of bad developers creating ugly buildings but a lot of the bad developments are driven by stupid HRM rules. For example, the viewplanes contort buildings (TD, Maritime Centre) and encourage developers to sink floors into the ground (Bishop's, Salter's Gate). All over the North End there have been developments hampered by 1970's-era parking requirements and in the suburbs we demand that developers put in extra setbacks and green space, thereby worsening sprawl. HRM's response to these problems, when they acknowledge them, is typically to add more red tape on top of the existing antiquated and ill-conceived system. I think they should be taking away red tape.

[someone123]

There was a letter from Andy Fillmore in Allnovascotia tonight. This quote is pretty bad:

"Density bonusing is the single best tool available in the city planner's toolkit to ensure that HRM residents and businesses will be the beneficiaries of a suite of public benefits at no cost."

There may be no direct financial cost to the municipality but there is a direct cost to developers, and there may be an indirect cost in terms of lost property tax revenue.

This attitude is all too common. You see related fallacious reasoning when government assumes that any use of assets they own is "free", and you see it when they think any regulation that doesn't involve a transfer of cash is "free". Some of the most expensive legislation and bylaws don't even mention money.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

There was a letter from Andy Fillmore in Allnovascotia tonight. This quote is pretty bad:

"Density bonusing is the single best tool available in the city planner's toolkit to ensure that HRM residents and businesses will be the beneficiaries of a suite of public benefits at no cost."

There may be no direct financial cost to the municipality but there is a direct cost to developers, and there may be an indirect cost in terms of lost property tax revenue.

This attitude is all too common. You see related fallacious reasoning when government assumes that any use of assets they own is "free", and you see it when they think any regulation that doesn't involve a transfer of cash is "free". Some of the most expensive legislation and bylaws don't even mention money.

Sadly, I think Mr. Fillmore has evolved in his tenure here from someone who seemingly sought to do something approaching "the right thing", to an arrogant, superior-attitude planning czar who is now all about putting his ego-driven master work in place, damn the consequences for HRM and the economy. It is time for a review.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

There was a letter from Andy Fillmore in Allnovascotia tonight. This quote is pretty bad:

"Density bonusing is the single best tool available in the city planner's toolkit to ensure that HRM residents and businesses will be the beneficiaries of a suite of public benefits at no cost."

There may be no direct financial cost to the municipality but there is a direct cost to developers, and there may be an indirect cost in terms of lost property tax revenue.

This attitude is all too common. You see related fallacious reasoning when government assumes that any use of assets they own is "free", and you see it when they think any regulation that doesn't involve a transfer of cash is "free". Some of the most expensive legislation and bylaws don't even mention money.

Nothing is for free, just passed all the costs off to the developer.

[SekishikiMeikaiHa]

Originally Posted by Pete Crawford

I would really appreciate it if anyone could take (and post) a picture of the progress being made on the new commercial area on Portland Street - the one in front of the Superstore where the former Mazda and Subaru dealerships were.

I grew up in Portland Estates but now live overseas, would be great to see it.

Here you go:

Taken on 28 Jan 2012:


Taken on 7 May 2012:


I will take another picture in another three months or so

[kph06]

222 Portland Street has had site work on-going for the past month or so. I don't think there is a thread for it, but the following is what I could dig up:

Case 16687

Presentation

[cormiermax]

Originally Posted by kph06

222 Portland Street has had site work on-going for the past month or so. I don't think there is a thread for it, but the following is what I could dig up:

Case 16687

Presentation

Meh.

[alps]

Most of us were pleased by this rendering released a couple years back, featuring nice big storefront windows on Gottingen, good massing, and a variety of materials that break up the facade in an attractive way:



I walked by today for the first time in ages. Brace yourselves...



This is more unfriendly-looking than the vacant lot it replaced!

(Sorry for the bad camerawork, though there isn't much cut off really -- there really is no entrance on the Gottingen side. I'll try to get a more complete photo soon.)

[someone123]

Wow, that's awful. It reminds me of the building at Agricola and North Street -- so much so that for a second I thought that was what you'd photographed. I wonder if they will be leaving unfinished concrete along the bottom of the building? The dark brick is okay but it's terrible to have a blank stretch like that along what's supposed to be a commercial street.

This illustrates why it's bad to focus so much on a few quantitative aspects of development like building heights and number of units. Those numbers are easy to specify and talk about but they are only a small part of what determines the quality of new buildings. In many cases the development process drags down developers who propose good but larger buildings while ugly smaller buildings slip through unchecked. Hopefully a more HbD-style planning regime for this part of town will correct the problem somewhat.

[cormiermax]

For gods sake kill it with fire before that style catches on with developers!

[scooby074]

All it is missing is bars on the windows....

What a awful look. Not even close to the rendering. How do they get away with this crap?

[moody]

I gotta come out of lurk mode for this one.

That's an absolute embarrassment of a building. What company is responsible for it?

[Canadian_Bacon]

Has anyone heard anything about the refinery in Dartmouth. Seems imperial is looking to sell or Convert the refinery into a terminal. Just wondering if this is new or if they have been thinking about this before.

Link to the story.
http://m.ctv.ca/canada/20120517/dart...il-120517.html

[Jstaleness]

That's pure crap.

[spaustin]

One of the worst bits of new construction ever.

[Jstaleness]

For the skyscraper fans. $12 dollars at WalFart.

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by Canadian_Bacon

Has anyone heard anything about the refinery in Dartmouth. Seems imperial is looking to sell or Convert the refinery into a terminal. Just wondering if this is new or if they have been thinking about this before.

Link to the story.
http://m.ctv.ca/canada/20120517/dart...il-120517.html

There have not been any new refineries built in North America in many years! The issue is not supply of crude oil but lack of refineries. This is why the price of oil goes up because there is less to go around. Bad move IMO.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

There have not been any new refineries built in North America in many years! The issue is not supply of crude oil but lack of refineries. This is why the price of oil goes up because there is less to go around. Bad move IMO.

I agree with you that fewer operating refineries contributes to a climbing price, but let's not exaggerate the possibility of fewer refineries affecting higher gas prices when much of this is due to a skyrocketing oil demand from developing nations becoming more broadly industrialised.

As well, since the majority of countries, aside from many in Europe (Germany) and Asia (China), have not adequately invested in green technologies, the demand (and price) for oil will not be curbed in the foreseeable future; therefore, neither will prices for most other things be curbed.

I haven't yet read anything about the Dartmouth refinery. I'm wondering about its profitability.