HRM by Design

[halifaxboyns]

Tim must have taken his vitamins today. I posted a rather turse reply to his editorial - I really wish he'd get the facts straight. Like I said in my post - the grandfathering and the conference centre don't tear out the guts of the plan, they formed part of it and it was council's option to include those during the approval process. They could've easily decided not too, but they didn't. So now it's all part of HbD. I also took a jab at his lovely comment on how everyone liked HbD...I didn't. There are parts I like, but the fact that existing building height is not recognized for development that occured prior to HbD is rediculous. Why should the martello be required to be smaller (shorter) if it was taken down in the event of fire or redevelopment? It should be allowed to be as tall as what it is now.

[someone123]

Did anybody seriously believe that HbD would "solve" all development issues in the city? That future debates and tension would simply evaporate? Sounds simple-minded and unrealistic to me.

Bousquet is exaggerating the level of consensus behind the new plan. By its very nature the consultation process favours some groups and makes it impossible for others to participate. It is difficult for developers to participate because they are small in number and do not necessarily know what they will work on in the future. Similarly we don't hear from future residents who will need new housing. We hear disproportionately from older homeowners with lots of time on their hands and a well-defined, stake out area.

On top of this, people often do not even know what they want. They might have goals (e.g. want sunlight, want affordable housing), but they often have no clue of how to implement or protect those things. That should be the job of planners and engineers but they have a bad habit of abdicating their duty by asking inappropriately open-ended questions and relying on consultation like a crutch ("it's not our fault! the public told us to do this!").

I think the post-BhD is actually improved, although there are a few mechanical flaws still to be corrected (the conversion on Queen or Dresden Row also went through HbD and 1 person went to the consultation). I think it's ideal to have a system where simple projects are rubber stamped but where there is still room for innovation and debate. I would hate to live in Tim's town where everything is settled and plotted out (poorly).

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Did anybody seriously believe that HbD would "solve" all development issues in the city? That future debates and tension would simply evaporate? Sounds simple-minded and unrealistic to me.

Bousquet is exaggerating the level of consensus behind the new plan. By its very nature the consultation process favours some groups and makes it impossible for others to participate. It is difficult for developers to participate because they are small in number and do not necessarily know what they will work on in the future. Similarly we don't hear from future residents who will need new housing. We hear disproportionately from older homeowners with lots of time on their hands and a well-defined, stake out area.

On top of this, people often do not even know what they want. They might have goals (e.g. want sunlight, want affordable housing), but they often have no clue of how to implement or protect those things. That should be the job of planners and engineers but they have a bad habit of abdicating their duty by asking inappropriately open-ended questions and relying on consultation like a crutch ("it's not our fault! the public told us to do this!").

I think the post-BhD is actually improved, although there are a few mechanical flaws still to be corrected (the conversion on Queen or Dresden Row also went through HbD and 1 person went to the consultation). I think it's ideal to have a system where simple projects are rubber stamped but where there is still room for innovation and debate. I would hate to live in Tim's town where everything is settled and plotted out (poorly).

I don't think it's necessairily the planners fault either. One of the challenges (for me) is to really engage people about what they want. How they did it would require a look at the terms of reference. I don't know what they were for HbD, so I'm only guessing.

But you can get a lot out of people by asking questions that aren't really open ended, but get them to think.
Stuff like:

• Where do you see the city being in 10, 15 or 20 years?
• What do you see the downtown looking like in 10, 15 or 20 years?
• What are some of the positive things about being in downtown?
• What are some of the negative things?
• What are the top 3 things you would want done for people walking in downtown?

Stuff like this - you can then get a general sense from that.
The opposite end to it is that you start out with very specific ideas in hand and try to get people on side, but that's a really tricky and sometimes dangerous game. If you walk out and say (as part of the engagement) that it's important for sunlight to reach the street level...do you agree? Then you are stacking the deck.

It's a fine line.

[someone123]

I think a question about what the city should look like in the future is less important than educating people about tradeoffs and understanding what they would prefer to sacrifice. Real questions faced by the municipality are things like:

-Would you spend $1000 per year to save 10 minutes off of your commute?
-Would you spend $1500 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only 5 storey buildings? $4000 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only houses?
-How much living space would you give up to be able to walk to day-to-day shops and services?
-Would you pay $200 a year to live in a city with a stadium?

To be honest the vision stuff mostly seems like a feel-good exercise to me. I'm sure it's great to run those things because there is relatively little conflict, but not much gets resolved.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think a question about what the city should look like in the future is less important than educating people about tradeoffs and understanding what they would prefer to sacrifice. Real questions faced by the municipality are things like:

-Would you spend $1000 per year to save 10 minutes off of your commute?
-Would you spend $1500 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only 5 storey buildings? $4000 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only houses?
-How much living space would you give up to be able to walk to day-to-day shops and services?
-Would you pay $200 a year to live in a city with a stadium?

To be honest the vision stuff mostly seems like a feel-good exercise to me. I'm sure it's great to run those things because there is relatively little conflict, but not much gets resolved.

See the problem with the questions you've shown is that they talk about value (as in property value). For planners, the value or cost of something on the market isn't really a concern.

You could probably reword the question to me more neutral:
Would you spend more money to live close to downtown if it cut time off your commute?
Would you be willing to pay higher property taxes if the funds generated were put to the construction of additional community oriented buildings such as a stadium?

Your question about living space is interesting though...makes people think that if they live in a condo, they have to give up something. If I were to move home now, I'd probably end up buying a condo that's actually bigger than the apt I'm living in now lol.

Visioning is a part of public engagement - it gets people thinking of what is important to them. You can draw out from that key ideas, which you can then expand on and get more specific. See if someone said to me that sunlight exposure on their walk to work is important - to me that would mean ensuring that if there are tall buildings - you ensure that through design, sunlight would make it to sidewalk level. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to get out of the engagement.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

See the problem with the questions you've shown is that they talk about value (as in property value). For planners, the value or cost of something on the market isn't really a concern.

I didn't mean property value. I was talking about municipal taxes. The city must pay for things like a stadium and must pay more to support low density areas. Property values are important too although they often just work themselves out in a healthy market.

There are sacrifices required for condos. I live in one and I like it but I don't have a front yard, and I have shared walls with neighbours. People above me make noise at night sometimes. The advantage is that the condo is more affordable so I have more space. The common areas are looked after too, which is great. I have to pay for that with condo fees but it's still way better (as far as I'm concerned) than worrying about having to mow the lawn or whatever. Many people don't share my perspective and the condo would be more or less desirable for them. Some people probably don't know if they would like living in a condo, even if they've made up their mind one way or the other.

See if someone said to me that sunlight exposure on their walk to work is important - to me that would mean ensuring that if there are tall buildings - you ensure that through design, sunlight would make it to sidewalk level. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to get out of the engagement.

But the problem is that there's going to be a cost to implementing the sunlight requirement to be paid largely by somebody other than the person who wants a sunny walk to work (probably also somebody who's not at the consultation!). This is where the tension comes from and is the real problem. A an isolated "want" from one group isn't very useful when it comes to making a decision.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think a question about what the city should look like in the future is less important than educating people about tradeoffs and understanding what they would prefer to sacrifice. Real questions faced by the municipality are things like:

-Would you spend $1000 per year to save 10 minutes off of your commute?
-Would you spend $1500 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only 5 storey buildings? $4000 a year to live in a neighbourhood of only houses?
-How much living space would you give up to be able to walk to day-to-day shops and services?
-Would you pay $200 a year to live in a city with a stadium?

To be honest the vision stuff mostly seems like a feel-good exercise to me. I'm sure it's great to run those things because there is relatively little conflict, but not much gets resolved.

These are reasonable questions but at $200 per year and approximately 150,000 taxpaying dwellings that would amount to $30 million per year for a stadium. I think it would be more reasonable to ask people if they would pay $20 per year for a stadium (and possibly much less depending on the size and revenue that it generates).

[someone123]

The specific numbers aren't important. They would have to be calculated on a case-by-case basis or you could poll people to find out how much they are willing to pay. Some costs might also not be presented in dollar terms, but if there are trade-offs they should be presented if possible.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't mean property value. I was talking about municipal taxes. The city must pay for things like a stadium and must pay more to support low density areas. Property values are important too although they often just work themselves out in a healthy market.

But the problem is that there's going to be a cost to implementing the sunlight requirement to be paid largely by somebody other than the person who wants a sunny walk to work (probably also somebody who's not at the consultation!). This is where the tension comes from and is the real problem. A an isolated "want" from one group isn't very useful when it comes to making a decision.

Sorry I miss understood what you meant in terms of value.

I think you would be surprised how much value statements like wanting sun exposure come up in certain things. It shocks me to a degree.
There are ways through regulation that you can deal with stuff, and other things that regulations can't deal with.

Development, no matter what people say, has an impact. What I'm trying to get at is that you can phrase questions in different ways, to get different results. But planners have to do their best not to be biased, they have to try to represent everyone which is pretty near impossible. So its a wonderful game of balance.

I don't think that HbD has done badly in trying to achieve stuff like getting sunlight onto the street through the streetwall height. Could it have done more? Well yes and as time passed, HbD may be changed to use those methods...but time will tell.

But where I totally agree with you is that it gave up too much in terms of height. If an existing building could not be removed and then rebuilt at the same height - something is wrong.

[halifaxboyns]

The latest updates to HbD are being debated by council.

[halifaxboyns]

Apparently the heritage trust proposed some changes (I missed most of the public hearing) so the item has been deferred to review the proposed wording changes and will come back.

[someone123]

So this is not exactly HbD-related, but there was a slightly depressing article about Argyle Street improvements in ANS tonight. There will be some public consultations over the next few weeks. Sounds like the process is being driven by the HDBC and will be run by the PDC.

The depressing part was the inventory of streetscaping studies that have been completed and shelved. The last Argyle study was in 2009 and nothing was accomplished. Victor Syperek made a very level-headed comment: the study results are about the same every time, and typically nothing is done about them. Argyle is a particularly simple case since it's really not a significant street for vehicle traffic.

The problem isn't a lack of studies, it's a lack of follow-through in terms of budgeting and planning direction to work through any problems with the plans.

It's sad that Halifax can't even get it together enough to build a goddamned sidewalk or some light poles for more than about a block at a time.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

So this is not exactly HbD-related, but there was a slightly depressing article about Argyle Street improvements in ANS tonight. There will be some public consultations over the next few weeks. Sounds like the process is being driven by the HDBC and will be run by the PDC.

The depressing part was the inventory of streetscaping studies that have been completed and shelved. The last Argyle study was in 2009 and nothing was accomplished. Victor Syperek made a very level-headed comment: the study results are about the same every time, and typically nothing is done about them. Argyle is a particularly simple case since it's really not a significant street for vehicle traffic.

The problem isn't a lack of studies, it's a lack of follow-through in terms of budgeting and planning direction to work through any problems with the plans.

It's sad that Halifax can't even get it together enough to build a goddamned sidewalk or some light poles for more than about a block at a time.

I had the same reaction. The mere fact that they are doing a 3rd study is an absolute indictment of this city and its ability to follow through on even simple street-scape improvements downtown. Just do it already.

[worldlyhaligonian]

They should do a study on all these studies... or not.

[Hali87]

There's a survey up about RP+5.. I'd encourage everyone to take the few minutes to fill it out, if for no other reason than to see the types of questions that are on it. I think we've grown up a little bit since RP+0.

[Waye Mason]

There was talk of doing an art project on Barrington of all the streetscape proposals going back the the 1970s, you could blow up the graphics and show all the different views. Have a book shelf, probably with 14-15 proposals on it, one every three years. All that would change would be the look of the street furniture, but they would all be basically the same.