[Halifax] Navy Lane Condos (2183 Gottingen) | 24 m | 8 fl | Approved

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But where do the obstructionists get the funds to pay for their end of the appeal process? I think if they lose they should be forced to pay costs for the other side as well.

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure where the money is coming from.

Unless lawyers are providing pro-bono or free services.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah, but we need to change the rules before we start ramming through buildings that are wildly non-conforming, unless we want to have a city where anything goes. (Maybe some of us do. I don't.)

Anyway, you seem to maybe be conflating the various groups of people who tend to oppose projects (the anti-height crowd, those concerned about gentrification, heritage advocates, and people with other planning concerns) into one generalized group of NIMBYs who are opposing things just because they hate change, or something. I think there's a sort of strawman, composite NIMBY in Halifax that doesn't really exist. The reality is that few people are universal NIMBYs. People oppose and support projects for all sorts of reasons. Hell, I'm supportive of this project, but even I have some reservations about its scale on Gottingen. This is very significant--there are commercial streets in places like London and Manhattan where this scale is prohibited. It IS a big project.

I don't think I'm conflating anything... its a 8 and 11 story proposal that is affordable housing, no? Its smaller than Gladstone Ridge and other developments in proximity... in an even more urbanized area. Look at the height of nearby Gerish towers which are configured in a terrible surburban manner.

Look at the composition of almost all people that oppose buildings just on height and you'll find at least a few of the same... even people who don't live anywhere near the proposal.

I'm not against the right to appeal, but at some point it gets ridiculous. Those who appealed last time knew what they were fighting against. The irony is the same people against this are pro-affordable housing in the market-developments (which typically makes little sense).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure where the money is coming from.

Unless lawyers are providing pro-bono or free services.

I think alot of them are lawyers themselves, many of them older with spare time on their hands.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Every time I hear Alan Ruffman talk about plan amendments as an evil; I want to put my fist through the monitor. They aren't, they are a necessary tool. Turn the argument around - a lot of the Halifax plan dates back to the 90's (and some parts are as old as the 70's if I remember correctly). Is it reasonable to evaluate an application in 2015 based on 1990's thinking? Or even 1970's?! Of course not - thus a plan amendments gives Council the opportunity to consider the application in today's context.

What's even worse is that the media often take these statements at face value without challenging them. I have often seen the as-of-right cutoffs conflated with viewplanes and other issues. Everything gets called "viewpanes" or "height limits" when in reality some of these things are meant to be adapted over time.

The current height limits really are not realistic for some lot types on Gottingen Street. If I remember correctly, one of the developers behind this project explained how the 40 storey limit is calculated starting from something less than the highest elevation point on the lot, so larger hilly lots only permit 1-2 storeys fronting onto Gottingen. That's not reasonable. The neighbourhood needs some medium density buildings.

[someone123]

Here's a larger rendering of the project:


Source

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

What's even worse is that the media often take these statements at face value without challenging them. I have often seen the as-of-right cutoffs conflated with viewplanes and other issues. Everything gets called "viewpanes" or "height limits" when in reality some of these things are meant to be adapted over time.

The media are terrible about taking developments at face value, whether it's the anti-development voices (Ruffman above) or certain developers themselves (i.e., "This old building I own is rundown and must be demolished because asbestos", or whatever).

Part of it is junior, genealist reporters who don't really know much about the topics they're covering, but some of them are more experienced, well-known local business columnists and the like. And regardless, editors should have the knowledge not to let that stuff pass unchallenged or uncorrected.

But they don't, so the way we all talk about development in the city is stunted.

[enjoy*responsibly]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The challenge with planning in general really. You can spend millions of $'s and man hours creating a plan and once it's passed - it's out of date. Architecture styles/technology are advancing pretty quick and what could happen today, may be 'old tech' by the end of this year.

Every time I hear Alan Ruffman talk about plan amendments as an evil; I want to put my fist through the monitor. They aren't, they are a necessary tool. Turn the argument around - a lot of the Halifax plan dates back to the 90's (and some parts are as old as the 70's if I remember correctly). Is it reasonable to evaluate an application in 2015 based on 1990's thinking? Or even 1970's?! Of course not - thus a plan amendments gives Council the opportunity to consider the application in today's context.

No city planning department has the resources to keep plans up to date on a yearly basis - it's just not possible. HRM struggles to keep plans to 5 year reviews (and they aren't alone - even us in Calgary, I know in Edmonton and even Toronto struggles with this). Plan Amendments are a legitimate tool and they aren't going away.

This is the point that frustrates me. They are a legitimate tool as no plan can be constantly up to date, but when used they can be spun to make it sound like developers are breaking the rules because it is non conforming with existing zoning. Easy and frustrating fall back argument for these groups that seems to resonate with the wider public.

Another thing is municipal planning is much like tax assessment in that "blanket" policies or valuations often get applied to properties at a high level which do not reflect the true best use or value for a site. Neither department has the capacity to properly analyze individual sites to come up with the most appropriate use or valuation.

Don't mean to take away from the project discussion, just ranting. Long live the internet

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Part of it is junior, genealist reporters who don't really know much about the topics they're covering, but some of them are more experienced, well-known local business columnists and the like. And regardless, editors should have the knowledge not to let that stuff pass unchallenged or uncorrected.

But they don't, so the way we all talk about development in the city is stunted.

My experience is that 99% of reporters are lazy when it comes to thinking things through and just want the story written for them. Most are fairly clueless about the topic under discussion and prefer to find an angle they can play up without having any real understanding of the issues. In the stories I have had an involvement with I am continually amazed at how they almost always get it wrong.

[JET]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I don't think I'm conflating anything... its a 8 and 11 story proposal that is affordable housing, no? Its smaller than Gladstone Ridge and other developments in proximity... in an even more urbanized area. Look at the height of nearby Gerish towers which are configured in a terrible surburban manner.

.

No, it's a proposal here only a portion is affordable housing, the rest will be at market rates. I think it's a great proposal, I hope they get going on it; and then do something with the bank and empty lot across the street, and to the north of this.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by JET

No, it's a proposal here only a portion is affordable housing, the rest will be at market rates. I think it's a great proposal, I hope they get going on it; and then do something with the bank and empty lot across the street, and to the north of this.

I hope so too. This type of development is like a lynchpin for the area.

The opposition is, quite frankly, irresponsible.

[IanWatson]

The CH is reporting that Community Council approved the development agreement for this one... and that Edward Edelstein et al. plan on appealing it.

So. Frickin. Frustrating.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The CH is reporting that Community Council approved the development agreement for this one... and that Edward Edelstein et al. plan on appealing it.

So. Frickin. Frustrating.

Ross Cantwell is not going to be pushed around by these clowns.

Let them have their appeal. This is going to be built.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Ross Cantwell is not going to be pushed around by these clowns.

Let them have their appeal. This is going to be built.

That's exactly what's so frustrating about this appeal.

The ability to appeal is a very important thing to have. It makes sure the public can hold Council accountable if they don't follow their own policies.

However, given that the LUB changes were appealed on this one, you can almost 100% guarantee that Staff and Council followed their policies to a tee for the development agreement portion of this proposal. So the reality is this appeal is doomed to fail. If the parties involved have a shred of sense, they'd know this. So what it indicates to me is that they're just throwing up obstructions. But to what end? Their appeal WILL fail. It WILL get built. And a project that is doing some good for the community and involves public dollars is going to face delays and additional costs. No one is winning here.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's exactly what's so frustrating about this appeal.

The ability to appeal is a very important thing to have. It makes sure the public can hold Council accountable if they don't follow their own policies.

However, given that the LUB changes were appealed on this one, you can almost 100% guarantee that Staff and Council followed their policies to a tee for the development agreement portion of this proposal. So the reality is this appeal is doomed to fail. If the parties involved have a shred of sense, they'd know this. So what it indicates to me is that they're just throwing up obstructions. But to what end? Their appeal WILL fail. It WILL get built. And a project that is doing some good for the community and involves public dollars is going to face delays and additional costs. No one is winning here.

Hence, there shouldn't be a second appeal. If lost, the appealants should have to pay for their cost to the public!

[hokus83]

Was kind of hopping they would just miss the deadline for the appeal. Any chance that happened?

[Colin May]

" Edelstein, the president and owner of Walk-Eh? Enterprise Ltd. and Eco Green Homes, led a group of business and landowners in an unsuccessful appeal before the Nova Scota Utility and Review Board in 2014 related to the city’s “schedule Q” land-use bylaw, which opened up the height restrictions.

His group, he said, contends that this “is illegal” and that “council is acting in a discretionary manner.”

A small-scale developer who owns nearby properties that include affordable units, Edelstein said the city turned down one of his proposals for a Maitland Street property because it would have been 40.9 feet tall, as opposed to 40 feet.

“Gottingen Street’s a hot spot for development, and what they’re doing is they’re saying to one developer you can have two or three times the height exemption, and there’s no requirement for affordable housing in the development agreement,” Edelstein said. "

He's claiming one developer is getting a deal that is not available to him and others.

[someone123]

That article is another case where it would have been much better if the author had outlined the approval process rather than simply interview some nearby business owners and residents who don't like the development. It's not illegal. They applied to change the land-use bylaws and get a development agreement instead of building as of right. It's all part of the approvals process.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah... its not illegal... that's why there was an amendment.

Did this guy and his extra meter seek an amendment. If not, why wouldn't he just scale it down a meter???

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

That article is another case where it would have been much better if the author had outlined the approval process rather than simply interview some nearby business owners and residents who don't like the development. It's not illegal. They applied to change the land-use bylaws and get a development agreement instead of building as of right. It's all part of the approvals process.

Local reporters are incredibly lazy when it comes to planning stories.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's exactly what's so frustrating about this appeal.

The ability to appeal is a very important thing to have. It makes sure the public can hold Council accountable if they don't follow their own policies.

However, given that the LUB changes were appealed on this one, you can almost 100% guarantee that Staff and Council followed their policies to a tee for the development agreement portion of this proposal. So the reality is this appeal is doomed to fail. If the parties involved have a shred of sense, they'd know this. So what it indicates to me is that they're just throwing up obstructions. But to what end? Their appeal WILL fail. It WILL get built. And a project that is doing some good for the community and involves public dollars is going to face delays and additional costs. No one is winning here.

They file the appeal, because they want to drive up costs. They want to make every single development a battle. By challenging everything, they drive up the costs of development, for everyone, but mostly for parties considering developing property. This means they likely chill some proposals from ever getting built, due to tighter margins. They're in the business of stopping everything they can, even if the law or process is not on their side.