HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 24, 2013, 10:40 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
I don't like seeing the ferry expansion disappear from the plan either. A ferry has a couple of key advantages, namely that we build a terminal, buy a boat and away we go. No need to deal with CN or upgrade the rail corridor or, potentially, acquire right of ways. A ferry could also drop people right in Downtown Halifax whereas rail, right now, stops several blocks short. In the debate over the ferry, the discussion failed to take into account a ferry's potential as a development tool. The harbour ferries are fun and are an attractive way to commute. If we put a ferry into Bedford, it would make the surrounding land way more attractive for development, which, being the waterfront, is already valuable land. Allowing growth near a new terminal could contribute significantly to paying for the service. We need to start taking into account the true costs and benefits of our spending decisions instead of fixating on the immediate cost. Rail may have a role in our future, but I often wonder if we're too fixated on the location of the existing tracks. An on-street streetcar system that links the universities, hospitals, Downtown might be a better bet than trying to use tracks that skirt several of the key destinations.
In the stadium thread, I posted this vision of Shannon Park:
Quote:
Now I know we all have different location preferences and I have said my preference is Shannon Park. With these ideas in mind - I ask you to vision something with me (which may also be workable to some degree at other sites).

Imagine a mixed use community of 8 to 12 storey buildings built next to the new stadium, along a 2 lane boulevarded street (tree lined), with a streetcar running along it that came from the Bridge Terminal. Along the water edge, a boardwalk with these mixed use buildings fronting to them, with cafes and restaurants with patios and condos above. A high speed ferry terminal in the cove (near the current smoke stacks) with a pocket park and plaza leading to the Boulevard and a street crossing to the Stadium. The stadium has limited parking (maybe 1 or 2 parkades which are built fronting to this boulevard - but have active uses on the ground floor (stores or restaurants). The back of house functions are tucked away behind the stadium, concealed by some mixed use buildings and the bus transit facility bringing people in is located where the commercial is on Wyse Road - with a sky walk bridge over the railway tracks.

I'm no artist (I can't draw to save my life) - but this sounds pretty cool.
I wanted to paint the idea that not only would a stadium be an interesting tool of redevelopment for the area, but so could the ferry and potentially a streetcar. I don't like the idea of taking it out of the plan, but then again it could always be put back in. I'd like to hear their rationale for why it was removed and if anyone knows a mechanism to comment to the City on it; I'll likely submit a comment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 10:33 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 10:52 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Having someone like Ruffman "teaching" planning is bad enough. However, he is also a convicted tax evader, yet his is affiliated with the School of Law at Dal. Something is very wrong here. Reform of the universities cannot happen soon enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 7:27 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
He talks about the proposed changes being anti-democratic but he's also fighting to keep in place the old system of notifying the public of changes through newspaper ads. This in itself is actually very undemocratic when you ask yourself, who still buys (actual, hard-copy) newspapers? The young? The poor? Those who are interested in change?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 11:16 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
The bill would never see daylight in the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 3:17 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
The bill would never see daylight in the USA.
Plenty of US cities use density bonusing and a variety of other methods to help achieve a number of goals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 8:46 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Plenty of US cities use density bonusing and a variety of other methods to help achieve a number of goals.
I was referring to the part dealing with no public consultation. US council meeting are quite lively and many places have better ways of allowing the public to speak on issues.
It would be good to see a monthly council meeting where the sole agenda item is where citizens get to ask questions, make a statement or recommendation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 8:57 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
I was referring to the part dealing with no public consultation. US council meeting are quite lively and many places have better ways of allowing the public to speak on issues.
Site plan approval means you do public consultation up front when you set the by-right heights and mass and design criteria, as was done for HRMbD downtown. It doesn't take away rights, it moves them to earlier in the process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 5:14 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Interesting news out of the Toronto Chief Planner's office today - Ontario building code has been amended to allow 6 storey wood frame construction of multi-residential buildings. Jen Keesmaat is calling this a big win for Toronto's Avenues project - reduced construction costs (while maintaining safety) should help increase the growth of many of the avenues.

Calgary is pushing the same thing for out here...I suspect it would be a good thing for HRM considering that many of the growth areas have some component at six stories. No recent web news about it; but Jen's tweet indicated that the changes for Ontario kick in January 2015.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2014/03/...e-construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 11:04 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
I cannot see 6-storey wood frames as being anything but bad - fire hazards, structural nightmare in extreme weather, and poor long-term quality. I understood this was the result of some serious lobbying by the wood supplier interests.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 2:01 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Article in the Metro: http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax...ntre-plan.html

"A higher standard of design" but it cannot be too high. Because you're limited to 20 storeys. Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 2:09 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I cannot see 6-storey wood frames as being anything but bad - fire hazards, structural nightmare in extreme weather, and poor long-term quality. I understood this was the result of some serious lobbying by the wood supplier interests.
(The post above is 4 years old but still interesting to talk about, and actually this has changed a bit.)

This is true of older wood construction but not true of newer wood construction. The newer stuff can be cheaper than steel and has good fire resistance characteristics (e.g. it can retain its strength past the temperature that would cause steel to soften and fail catastrophically). In the next couple of decades I think wood will be used more in highrise buildings, and will become more common in midrises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 3:55 AM
Querce Querce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 129
My concern about this is just how much of the area will still be zoned as single family residential... especially around the universities. I mean, surely that would be prime areas for 'higher order residential' and mixed-use apartments, but I guess they really want to make sure people get good use out of their bus passes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 2:43 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Querce View Post
My concern about this is just how much of the area will still be zoned as single family residential... especially around the universities. I mean, surely that would be prime areas for 'higher order residential' and mixed-use apartments, but I guess they really want to make sure people get good use out of their bus passes.
Unfortunately this is just standard-issue planning in Canada today, similar to Toronto's avenues-and-established-neighbourhoods zoning. Most Canadian cities continue to designate the large majority of their land area, even centrally, as unavailable for significant intensification, driving all development to a few corridors and specifically zoned locations.

I understand why: it's politically impossible. People in houses and rowhouses don't want to see even modest multi-unit buildings going up next door on their "stable" residential streets. Can you imagine what the Peggy Cameron types would say if a couple of houses in their South End/West End precincts were demolished and even a four-storey apartment building went up next door?

Of course I don't think tall buildings would be appropriate to place in the middle of a block occupied otherwise by detached houses, but I think we should permit new construction up to six, or at least four storeys in established areas, as long as due diligence is taken care to protect historic vernacular housing and other heritage resources.

But I also think it'll be a long time before any Canadian city makes a serious move in that regard. (If it ever happens, maybe Vancouver would lead the way, if only because desperation over extreme housing costs would force the city to find ways to get more housing in existing neighbourhoods.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 4:36 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
I would like to think that small infill allowances is the next step in the established residential neighbourhoods. It is all about guiding development to where it needs to be. This plan is based on a set number of units being built. Once that is accomplished along the main streets and corridors and such then we can focus on more infill in the other areas.

The past 70 years or so have been horrible for our main streets with focus being placed on auto-centric development. These area have huge gaping holes in their fabrics for parking lots. I think its imperative that development is guided to repair this before it goes into other areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 6:48 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Article in the Metro: http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax...ntre-plan.html

"A higher standard of design" but it cannot be too high. Because you're limited to 20 storeys. Ridiculous.
quality, not quantity.
ill take quality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2018, 9:40 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
With unrealistic height limits, you might get lower quality designs and materials because the revenue potential is more limited.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2018, 5:52 AM
Querce Querce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Can you imagine what the Peggy Cameron types would say if a couple of houses in their South End/West End precincts were demolished and even a four-storey apartment building went up next door?
What I don't get though is that there are places near SMU that are labelled as allowing 26 m tall buildings, or 7/8 stories. And then right next to them are single-family, detached houses. I'm not Peggy Cameron, but if I was, I would certainly be a lot more outraged by 8 story buildings surrounded by 8 story buildings than about 8 story buildings surrounded by 4 story buildings and then have single-family homes. And that's what I would personally prefer anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2018, 1:25 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Querce View Post
What I don't get though is that there are places near SMU that are labelled as allowing 26 m tall buildings, or 7/8 stories. And then right next to them are single-family, detached houses. I'm not Peggy Cameron, but if I was, I would certainly be a lot more outraged by 8 story buildings surrounded by 8 story buildings than about 8 story buildings surrounded by 4 story buildings and then have single-family homes. And that's what I would personally prefer anyway.
There are just a few of those, it looks like. One facing South Street, so the single-family homes are behind, in a protected neighbourhood.

The other covers the Sobeys site, so it does border on a single-family house, but I mean, I dunno. Fenwick is also right across the street.

And then there are a few along Wellington, but they're isolated spots next to 14-metre precincts.

Also, from what I understand, there are additional rules about transitions, so 26 metres doesn't necessarily mean you can put 26-metres there without some kind of transition space.

It doesn't really concern me; it seems appropriate. I'm more concerned about the heritage impact of upzoning that Victorian corner around Barrington and Inglis. That's a sort of organic little town centre-type intersection that's popped up, and has some real heritage value. A couple of bad developments would obliterate it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2018, 2:14 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
I would like to think that small infill allowances is the next step in the established residential neighbourhoods. ...
I see in Package A that Package B, which deals with "stable" residential, will include secondary suites and "backyard" suites, which seems like a way to allow for density in established areas while only pissing off a couple neighbours at a time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.