HRM by Design

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

Heres an interesting read in the most recent issue of Halifax magazine. Im glad word like this is finally making it out to the public. It's a breath of fresh air:

http://www.halifaxmag.com/features_detail.asp?id=137

The quote by Phil Pacey shows just how scrambled the thinking of the Heritage Trust is. In one breath he says they are all about protecting heritage buildings and aren't anti-development; but in the very next comment he starts going on about the need to protect the views from Citadel Hill and bringing up Maritime Center. Good lord.

I'd also feel a lot more optimistic if Dawn Sloane wasn't at the center of it, saying absurdities like this:

If the city creates an atmosphere that encourages beautiful buildings, the rest will follow, she believes. “We need to figure out, and figure out now, what we can all live with,” Sloane says. “What if we just say, from Duke Street to Spring Garden Road, buildings should be seven storeys and that’s it? That protects the view planes—from the heritage side, seven storeys isn’t a problem— and then the developers know the rules they have to work with.” That’s one of several compromises officials are discussing. But ultimately, it will take pressure on government, from people just like you, to keep advancing these issues.

That is pretty much what HBD has come up with. Sad.

[Wishblade]

Yeah, I cant say I was too happy with those parts of the article. And I think Dawn Sloane got way too much coverage in it.

[someone123]

I really dislike how Pacey talks as if the whole city can subsist off of Argyle Streets and Keiths breweries. It can't. That kind of thing is about 2% of the economy, which is exactly what explains why there is so little development downtown relative to the suburbs. Furthermore, there are relatively few other heritage buildings suitable for similar redevelopments and re-filling buildings constructed in 1820 can hardly be considered "growth".

Basically the comments of Pacey et al. need to be taken for what they are - personal opinions based on little overall understanding of urban dynamics, architecture, and economic realities. The future of the downtown should not be decided by people who can only see 20% of the overall picture.

Sloane's point about clarity being needed in the development process is accurate but the idea that practically any height is reasonable so long as there are no appeals is likely totally wrong. During this process has anybody actually tried to figure out the requirements of businesses locating in the downtown core instead of just giving them whatever the heritage people are happy with (because it makes new buildings look like old ones) or whatever the planners are happy with (because the renderings look pretty)?

[Dmajackson]

Halifax needs tall buildings or risks 'hollowing out': Lund

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Thu. Apr 24 - 5:54 PM

The chief executive of Nova Scotia's major economic development agency says it's vital that Halifax city council allow exceptions to proposed rules restricting downtown building heights.

Council is expected to hear a proposal that would fix height restrictions in the downtown area in order to allow people to still see the harbour from various locations.
However, Stephen Lund mdash; the head of Nova Scotia Business Inc. — says he needs more office space in order to attract businesses to the province.

He told the Halifax Chamber of Commerce today that without ``flexibility'' in height restrictions it's possible that businesses he's trying to attract to the city will choose another location.

Lund says companies want to be downtown, and the city hasn't had a major new tall building in 18 years.

Heritage groups argue that the proposed rules are already flexible enough to allow development, and that there is already a considerable amount of vacant space in existing buildings.

Source: The Chronicle Herald

[Wishblade]

Ok, someone posted this on Novascotialive, and I just had to post it here.

I present to you, the heritage trusts top 10 reasons (rediculous reasons) why HRM by design puts Halifax at risk:

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/heritage...HT_Flyerv3.pdf

[hfx_chris]

I said it there, and I'll say it again here: that's a piece of trash. Comparing the historical buildings of Jerusalem, Vienna or Paris and their methods of preserving heritage to Halifax is absurd. It's quite obvious the Heritage Trust's methods aren't working, otherwise Halifax wouldn't be in the state it is in today. Time to get rid of them, or severely limit their say.

[Dmajackson]

I love how they say low-rises are cheap to live in. Though it might be true sometimes, some places like Park Vic are cheaper to live in then lets say a house in Schmidtville (Park Vic's backyard).

[Jonovision]

$50 million in spin offs from citadel hill?!?!!? Come on now! And that whole nonsense about Sustainability and Environment, utter bullshit. Old buildings guzzle energy, and unless retrofitted properly will continue to do so....even if they remain intact! And then they go on about public consultation? where do these people get off. The old strategy is so distorted and so ambiguous.....this is why we have all these development fights at council. If they were paying attention they'd notice that over 500 people showed up to one HRM by Design meetings. I don't think they had that kind of turnout when the current plan was written. These people make me angry, all those "great historic cities" are finally allowing the bubble to become flexible. They are erecting some of the most amazing buildings we have ever seen, and they are the better for it. Flying in the face of current practices my ass!!!!

Sorry for the rant guys

[someone123]

Almost all of what they say is wrong, but two things in particular bother me:

1) Height limits are a terrible way to protect heritage buildings. They do nothing to prevent demolition and neglect, and in fact they encourage it by making it harder to fill in nearby empty lots.

2) Downtown Halifax has historic buildings but there are no complete historic districts. Barrington certainly is not one and has not been one since the 1960s. Preserving the downtown in its current state will not recreate the 1950s, it will simply perpetuate problems from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, which is when the downtown was remade into its current form. The urban fabric downtown needs a lot of work and it's just not going to happen if the requirement is that all new buildings go through 5 years of scrutiny by the heritage crew and come out of it as 6 storey boxes.

[sdm]

Too bad the current HRM design being proposed is now 70 foot height limits for 95% of downtown. The only sites from what i can see where heights of higher then 70 are allowed are owned by Provincial and the city governments.

If it goes through it appears we will never see a true highrise in Halifax. These strict heights will make development with rising costs almost impossible.

[Spitfire75]

Couldn't disagree more with everything they said.

Originally Posted by sdm

If it goes through it appears we will never see a true highrise in Halifax.

At least on the peninsula where the height restrictions are.

But then again, a true high rise would look funny if it wasn't around other tall buildings, and the only place there's any decently tall buildings is the peninsula.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Spitfire75

Couldn't disagree more with everything they said.



At least on the peninsula where the height restrictions are.

But then again, a true high rise would look funny if it wasn't around other tall buildings, and the only place there's any decently tall buildings is the peninsula.

Problem is without height it will be hard to develop buildings downtown without creating very high and unmarketable rents. We need height, not talking 20 stories or more, but certainly more then 7

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by sdm

Problem is without height it will be hard to develop buildings downtown without creating very high and unmarketable rents. We need height, not talking 20 stories or more, but certainly more then 7

actually we probably should be talking 20 or more. A 20 story building is just simply not very tall, and it just makes economic sense to build taller than that.

[spaustin]

Goodness knows I'm not a fan of heritage trust's extremer views, but I'm also not a fan of unlimited height. There are many cities (Washington and some European cities) that have achieved density without going high. Done right, the 8-10 storey range can be quite effective. Part of the problem in Halifax is that there is so much speculation which is heightened by the haphazard process we have. Its crazy that developers like Crombie or United Gulf who have development agreements for tall buildings have a winfall just from going through the mess to successfully secure an approval! That to me is a clear sign of a broken system. If we're going to limit height, rules have to be clear and the process streamlined. Asking developers to sit through 5 years to build a small building is crazy. As it stands, HRM by Design sets some fairly reasonable height limits that take account of both sides.

My main problem with HRM by Design is how it went for the faux heritage/freeze Barrington in time version of things. We should encourage an eclectic mix, not impose limits that force modern buildings to pretend to be quaint 19th century structures. Take the Canada Permanent Insurance Building (former office turned residential with timmy's on the ground floor next to the Tramway Building). It's one of the first modern high-rises in the city and a great example of the international style. What does it get in HRM by Design? Criticized for clashing with its neighbours and no recognition as part of Barrington. Why HRM by Design went for this version? Well I suspect it was to try and appeal to Heritage Trust; Give them Barrington but make them give up things elsewhere. From their reaction though they might as well not have bothered. Those folks seem to be true bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) who are completely unwilling to compromise.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

My main problem with HRM by Design is how it went for the faux heritage/freeze Barrington in time version of things. We should encourage an eclectic mix, not impose limits that force modern buildings to pretend to be quaint 19th century structures. Take the Canada Permanent Insurance Building (former office turned residential with timmy's on the ground floor next to the Tramway Building). It's one of the first modern high-rises in the city and a great example of the international style. What does it get in HRM by Design? Criticized for clashing with its neighbours and no recognition as part of Barrington. Why HRM by Design went for this version? Well I suspect it was to try and appeal to Heritage Trust; Give them Barrington but make them give up things elsewhere. From their reaction though they might as well not have bothered. Those folks seem to be true bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) who are completely unwilling to compromise.

I couldn't agree more. Your example of the Canada Permanent Building is also the one that jumped out at me when I read HbD. I always liked the look of that building and did not know that it was the first example of that style here, yet they look down their nose at it and basically say it should go away. That inventory of building on Barrington was clearly written by a heritage snob and does not represent a balanced view of things. Yet I do not agree with you that HbD tries to make up for giving Barrington to the Heritage types by "making up for it elsewhere", as some of the design principles they espouse for other areas are equally bad and cater more to the faux-heritage types than an eclectic mix of all design types.

[someone123]

I wouldn't mind going for the 8-10 floor height limits, except for one thing: Halifax already has highrise buildings. The Maritime Centre, Scotia Square, bank buildings, Fenwick, etc. are not going anywhere. Keeping everything else lowrise actually *amplifies* their prominence in the city and gives the impression that nothing has changed since the 1970s. Few people seem to be thinking about these unavoidable side effects.

There are other issues as well. For example, downtown Halifax has very small blocks. Most of the 8-10 storey downtown buildings in Washington DC have very large floorplates. They also have high ceilings in many cases and I would imagine that they'd generally be too tall for our height limits, particularly farther up towards the Citadel.

One possible solution to this problem would be to find some other core areas to build large buildings in. Unfortunately, there's very little tolerance for infill in the neighbourhoods. There are actually several cases of "down-zoning" by councillors at the behest of residents before land is even up for new development (so there is no developer and the public "debate" is totally one-sided). This happened on the land behind that government building around Barrington/Morris, for example - they want nothing but townhouses on that lot.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by someone123

One possible solution to this problem would be to find some other core areas to build large buildings in. Unfortunately, there's very little tolerance for infill in the neighbourhoods. There are actually several cases of "down-zoning" by councillors at the behest of residents before land is even up for new development (so there is no developer and the public "debate" is totally one-sided). This happened on the land behind that government building around Barrington/Morris, for example - they want nothing but townhouses on that lot.

"Down-zoning" is a major problem here. I can only think of one building that has made it through in the soth-end (5800 South) and thats because its shorter then its neighbour. In the South-end (for example) i think low rise should be permitted generally, mid to hi-rise at appropriate locations (South Park St, Barrington Street, South St, Robie St, ect) and certain areas should only be townhouses/single-family houses (Young Ave, south of the rail-cut, Southwood Dr, McLean St, ect)

[Spitfire75]

HRM awaits planning change

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Mon. Jun 16 - 4:31 AM

The province "sideswiped" Halifax by failing to pass key legislation relating to HRM by Design during the spring session, a regional councillor says.

Four amendments central to HRM by Design, an effort to streamline development projects in downtown Halifax, were meant to be passed during the spring sitting of the legislature but the House closed last week without the amendments going through.

"This has been a two-year process and the largest public process in HRM’s history," Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said Thursday in an interview after the annual general meeting of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission.

"We were quite sideswiped by the province."

Premier Rodney MacDonald has said repeatedly that downtown Halifax needs help, she pointed out, and yet the province failed to pass the legislation.

The executive director of the business commission said he, too, laments the shelving of the four amendments.

In an address to about 60 people at the Carleton bar, Paul MacKinnon said the commission was pushing for solutions to the problems downtown developers experience.

"For too many years, downtown Halifax has been caught in a morass of development red tape," he said. "New developments were stalled or appealed, and heritage buildings were rotting from lack of investment.
"This situation is untenable."

HRM by Design will bring clarity for developers wanting to build in the downtown and introduce better design guidelines, Mr. MacKinnon said.

The amendments were to include giving the city control over things like building design, creating a design review committee to look at applications instead of regional council doing it, making council — not the Utility and Review Board —an appeal body for development proposals, and deleting the review board from the downtown Halifax planning process.

As well, there were provisions to increase the length of time it takes to get a demolition permit to two years from one.

Mr. MacKinnon urged commission members to put pressure on all three political parties over the summer "to really take seriously their responsibility for allowing Halifax to move forward," he said.

"I just don’t think they understood the magnitude of what they didn’t do in the spring session, and we’re going to make sure they do in the fall session."

The HRM by Design project manager said he’s not worried about the delay.
"The deferral in no way undermines the intent, or the content, of the plan," Andy Fillmore said Thursday.

The communications director for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations said Thursday it’s likely the amendments will proceed as planned in the fall.
(apugsley@herald.ca)

[Dmajackson]

Normally I wouldn't post a opinion article from the Herald here but it is by the chair of the Urban Design Task Force:

Downtown plan balances rich past, vibrant future

By DALE GODSOE
Thu. Aug 28 - 7:01 AM

HRM BY DESIGN has engaged the public in a democratic, community-led process to determine the vision for our downtown and to establish new policy that will make the vision a reality.

Over the past two years, the citizen-led Urban Design Task Force has consulted, engaged and communicated with thousands of members of the public to ensure that the resulting plan creates a vibrant, exciting and beautiful downtown for residents and visitors. It is a plan that balances our rich past with a vibrant and beautiful future.

Without this plan, we will continue to see parking lots on our waterfront, vacant and underused properties throughout the downtown, crumbling heritage resources in need of support through legislation and incentives for restoration, and an ongoing out-migration of young, highly skilled workers looking for a dynamic and progressive place to live and work.

A recent opinion piece contained a number of inaccuracies that we would like to address to ensure readers have the correct information about the enhanced heritage protection that is a large part of HRM by Design. This plan will neither encourage nor allow 30 high-rises in the central business district, nor will it encourage the demolition of heritage resources. On the contrary, HRM by Design will provide strengthened heritage protections, and directs any future tall buildings to those areas where tall buildings already exist, thereby preserving the heritage heart of the downtown. Finally, HRM by Design is creating new planning policy and has no ability to influence applications being processed under current policy.

The establishment of the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District (HCD), HRM’s first ever HCD, will occur with the adoption of the downtown plan. It will help protect and conserve this continuous, well-defined heritage area through improved demolition and rehabilitation guidelines, and a tax incentive and grants program designed to stimulate the revitalization of this historic streetscape.

Improved demolition control is also being sought through provincial legislative amendments to help protect the stand-alone heritage buildings not located in the Barrington Street HCD, and through the identification of two other future heritage conservation districts – Historic Properties and Barrington Street south. Heritage design guidelines in the new Design Manual will guide appropriate development and design of buildings integrated with, and next to existing heritage buildings both inside and outside of HCDs.

Another protection for heritage exists within the proposed development-approvals process and proposed downtown land-use bylaw. Under the existing development-agreement process, new projects can be negotiated to heights up to the ceiling of the Citadel and ramparts view planes. We have seen this occur countless times over the years, as evidenced by the many tall buildings in our central business district.

In many cases, HRM by Design is actually reducing heights below those attainable under current policy, to a pre-established maximum that has been agreed upon by the public throughout this process. These heights have been widely consulted and are informed by the local neighbourhoods, adjacency to heritage conservation districts or other tall buildings, view planes, access to public open spaces such as the waterfront boardwalk, and many other factors.

Further, the new bonus zoning agreement process will provide protection for heritage through onsite restoration or improvements as a public benefit to be provided by the developer.

Draft 2 of the Downtown Halifax Urban Design Plan will be released for public review on Sept. 15. Interested residents will have six weeks to review the plan documents, with all final comments to be directed to HRM by Oct. 24. Plan documents will be available as of Sept. 15 at www.hrmbydesign.ca and CD and hard copies can be obtained at 40 Alderney Dr., second floor, Alderney Gate in Dartmouth.

I strongly encourage people to participate in this public review period to ensure that we take the best possible plan for our downtown to council in early 2009 and achieve our goal of improving the vibrancy, beauty and sustainability of our regional showroom – downtown Halifax.

Dale Godsoe is chair, Urban Design Task Force.

[Wishblade]

"A recent opinion piece contained a number of inaccuracies that we would like to address to ensure readers have the correct information about the enhanced heritage protection that is a large part of HRM by Design. This plan will neither encourage nor allow 30 high-rises in the central business district, nor will it encourage the demolition of heritage resources. On the contrary, HRM by Design will provide strengthened heritage protections, and directs any future tall buildings to those areas where tall buildings already exist, thereby preserving the heritage heart of the downtown."


Ok, now let me get this straight. Only putting highrises where highrises already exist. That would include virtually the entire downtown would it not??