HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2022, 5:20 PM
kzt79 kzt79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 213
Canada’s transition away from single-family detached homes will be messy

Interesting opinion piece in the G&M. IMO this isn't speculation, it's reality we have seen already for many years in Halifax: NIMBYs opposing every development proposal, endless complaints about things like height, a hostile and inefficient council, and ridiculously long, drawn out bureaucratic approval process.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...-homes-canada/

John Belec is professor emeritus of geography and the environment at University of the Fraser Valley.

Rapid densification has emerged as a favoured policy approach to fix Canada’s housing crisis. The thinking is that Canadian cities possess underutilized resource wealth in the form of single-detached housing lots. Rezoning these to permit construction of multiple units, so the argument goes, will release the potential for increased supply, which many (but not all) analysts and politicians agree is the root cause of the crisis.

An additional component to the densification argument is the belief that municipalities are at best indifferent, and at worst hostile, to the work necessary to densify. This is due in part to the alleged NIMBY (”not in my backyard”) attitude of residents in opposition who pack council meetings and influence decisions on rezoning applications.

There is also the view that municipal bureaucratic inefficiencies result in lengthy delays for building approvals and add administrative costs to new construction. Momentum is now growing to ease the building of new and different types of housing across the country. This will likely spur change, but the transition promises to be bumpy.

In its most recent budget announcement, Ottawa described the apparent inability of Canadian municipalities to deliver on densification as a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. Its solution, also announced in the budget, is the “Housing Accelerator Fund.” Although details are sketchy, the fund will reward efforts by cities that promote densification. This carrot approach contrasts with the stick brandished by provincial housing ministers such as B.C.’s David Eby, who has signalled that the province is prepared to override local authority on zoning and building approvals.

Building sector sees challenges in budget’s key program to expand the pace of home building in Canada

At its core, the densification movement represents a renunciation of the housing model that built post-war Canada: the single-detached suburban home. Promoters of this model included the Central (later Canada) Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which published pattern books of housing designs beginning in 1947. Canadians were advised to ensure that their new homes be protected by zoning ordinances and that they fit with the character of the neighbourhood. Readers were assured that this would insure a “good long-term investment,” which is precisely what has occurred.

The potential impact of densification policy initiatives on single-detached home ownership remains to be seen. If nothing else, these efforts may accelerate a generational pivot in housing tenure and style of the sort that writer and academic Richard Florida has said is occurring in the United States. As the rooted geography of the industrial era gives way to the flexible mobility of the post-industrial age, Mr. Florida argues the consequence is a “great housing reset.” Mr. Florida coined the term to describe a decline in the rate of homeownership in the United States this century and a concomitant rise in renting.

Although less pronounced than in the U.S., Canada also experienced a historic drop recently in the homeownership rate. The rate peaked at 69 per cent in 2011 and then fell for the first time since the early 1970s to 67.8 per cent, as reported in the 2016 Canadian census. That census also reported a continued decline in the proportion of the Canadian housing stock consisting of single-detached houses, at 53.6 per cent. For the long term, there are reasons to expect that the ownership/rental ratio in Canada will continue to shift toward rental, assuming availability of the supply of such units.

More impactful for Canada in comparison to the U.S. will be the arrival of immigrants in the near term. The ambitious target of more than 430,000 permanent residents per year for the next three years will increase demand for shelter, possibly dispersed more evenly across the country depending on federal- and provincial-settlement policies. Previous research by sociology professor Michael Haan has shown that rental is the dominant choice for new arrivals to Canada, at least in their first few years of settlement.

There are signs that Canada’s housing sector is experiencing a generational pivot away from the single-family detached home. The success of recent federal and provincial densification initiatives should accelerate this transition, but it promises to be messy and rancorous. Much depends on how quickly density is introduced and what role residents are permitted in deciding how it is to be implemented.

Pushback from those opposed to neighbourhood change, especially if it is imposed by provincial governments, is inevitable. However, other residents will be more than happy to pocket the inflated price of their re-zoned properties. Hanging in the balance are those desperate for the promised fruits of densification, especially the unhoused and under-housed. The job of managing these expectations may be just as demanding as implementing the land-use transition. In any case, it’s all about to descend on a city hall near you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2022, 6:55 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
Halifax is interesting in that it has basically the best possible greenfield sites available on its periphery yet prices still spiked there and there are big delays in getting new supply going.

The public conversation mostly seems to be in the weeds to me. Frameworks like NIMBY-style debates around preserving nature (can't build it here, can't build it here...) get the attention but there is relatively little discussion of what good development should look like on a greenfield site (probably not towers with huge setbacks and scarce local amenities). Shifting development around based on which NIMBY fights hardest is a negative sum game while good planning is a positive sum game.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2022, 7:49 PM
kzt79 kzt79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Halifax is interesting in that it has basically the best possible greenfield sites available on its periphery yet prices still spiked there and there are big delays in getting new supply going.

The public conversation mostly seems to be in the weeds to me. Frameworks like NIMBY-style debates around preserving nature (can't build it here, can't build it here...) get the attention but there is relatively little discussion of what good development should look like on a greenfield site (probably not towers with huge setbacks and scarce local amenities). Shifting development around based on which NIMBY fights hardest is a negative sum game while good planning is a positive sum game.
I agree.

Unfortunately it seems Halifax (or at least the loudest voices) can't get past the first step.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2022, 3:57 PM
TheNovaScotian's Avatar
TheNovaScotian TheNovaScotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by kzt79 View Post
I agree.

Unfortunately it seems Halifax (or at least the loudest voices) can't get past the first step.
Worse off, we have locked in our problems for 10 years until a review can be done on our attempt to bake in all the single detached neighborhoods into the Centre Plan.

Good thing we aren't trying to convince large amounts of people to stay here during our boom time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 11:00 AM
kzt79 kzt79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian View Post
Worse off, we have locked in our problems for 10 years until a review can be done on our attempt to bake in all the single detached neighborhoods into the Centre Plan.

Good thing we aren't trying to convince large amounts of people to stay here during our boom time.
That makes me think - the past couple years have been a rather unique time in terms of migration TO Nova Scotia for a change. I wouldn't put it past the government to extrapolate growth this indefinitely (in terms of spending planning) but in the end watch us squander this opportunity and be back to a stagnant no-growth economy in fairly short order. I hope not! But this outcome wouldn't surprise me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 11:53 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Is this a problem in Halifax, though? Other than the Centre Plan, which seemed outdated from the time it introduced - there should definitely be more height allowed in more areas than allowed under the current plan.

However, Centre Plan aside, right now there are cranes everywhere and excavated lots ready for multi-unit buildings to be built on, and the general discussions in this forum seem to imply that the developers are running flat-out, and aside from that, there aren't enough trades available to do the work.

Meanwhile, I can probably count on one hand the number of new SFH developments taking place in the city.

IMHO, not everyone desires to live in an apartment building or condo, which is why you see large SFH developments happening in places like Lantz, when that level of development used to happen in the city.

So, is it a problem in Halifax?

That said, I agree that it's time to overhaul the zoning regulations to allow densification in areas where it wasn't previously allowed. At the same time I also understand the desire for those who still want to live in a stand-alone home, and that it's a tragedy that younger people are being priced out of the market by investors and speculators, thus being forced to live in an apartment with little hope of ever owning a home of their own, unless mommy and daddy are rich.

There are lots of questions that need to be asked, and they go beyond this topic - like why could previous generations get a job with a high school education where they could earn enough to buy a small or modest home, whereby things have shifted to the point where a young person (without rich parents) must go into debt to get a university education that doesn't guarantee landing a well-paying job, meanwhile those with the cash are buying up properties as investments and driving up prices. What caused the shift and where are we going with it? Is it a symptom of the 1% model, or something else? Regardless, it just seems that life is becoming harder and more complicated to live, and much less enjoyable for people coming up - and to what end?

There's also the topic of trades which has come up on this forum before - why aren't young people going into the trades as much as they used to? It seems like they have been looked down on before, but it really seems to be where the best opportunities are now.

There... 'older-guy' rant done. Feel free to skewer my words, but don't attack my character...

(just kidding)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 12:48 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Is this a problem in Halifax, though? Other than the Centre Plan, which seemed outdated from the time it introduced - there should definitely be more height allowed in more areas than allowed under the current plan.
The entire Centre Plan debacle, which took so long and cost so much, only to hatch a very outdated and ridiculously complex result, should really be reason to clean out the entire Planning Dept within HRM and also the entire Mayor and Council who sung its praises, as clearly they are completely out of touch with reality.

Quote:
That said, I agree that it's time to overhaul the zoning regulations to allow densification in areas where it wasn't previously allowed. At the same time I also understand the desire for those who still want to live in a stand-alone home, and that it's a tragedy that younger people are being priced out of the market by investors and speculators, thus being forced to live in an apartment with little hope of ever owning a home of their own, unless mommy and daddy are rich.

There are lots of questions that need to be asked, and they go beyond this topic - like why could previous generations get a job with a high school education where they could earn enough to buy a small or modest home, whereby things have shifted to the point where a young person (without rich parents) must go into debt to get a university education that doesn't guarantee landing a well-paying job, meanwhile those with the cash are buying up properties as investments and driving up prices. What caused the shift and where are we going with it? Is it a symptom of the 1% model, or something else? Regardless, it just seems that life is becoming harder and more complicated to live, and much less enjoyable for people coming up - and to what end?

There's also the topic of trades which has come up on this forum before - why aren't young people going into the trades as much as they used to? It seems like they have been looked down on before, but it really seems to be where the best opportunities are now.
That is a series of complex questions and I do not have the answers but I would make a few points. The first is that even as useless a Council as ours needs to tread very carefully if they were to go into blockbusting mode with planning regulations to allow large apartment blocks in existing long-developed single-family neighborhoods. Even the typical oblivious HRM voter might be stirred into action to to throw the bums out after they learn that their well-kept 1940s upper middle-class enclave of SFHs is being invaded by 20-storey glass apartment blocks.

Why can't people afford homes? I'm not so sure they can't. Just watching the overheated real estate market in the last year or so, all those overpriced houses are selling quickly, and it's not all overseas speculators as the media like to tout. In my own neighborhood they are being bought up by ordinary folks, in many cases young couples. What they do or where they get their money I cannot say. The one common thing I can point to is that in my experience they are dual-income couples, with good but not necessarily great jobs. Maybe mom and dad helped them with the down payment, I don't know. But they are toting the note, as the saying goes, on the monthly payment. They are not living in poverty afterwards either.

It has never been easy for first time home buyers. When I was a kid second and even third mortgages (usually from private lenders) were not uncommon for home buyers. I don't know if that is still the case. The CMHC requirement for a 20% down payment probably is not helping either. So govt requires at least a $100K down payment on that entry-level $500K home if I understand the rules correctly. When I bought my place 25 years ago I needed 1/4 of that sum. It was a stretch, but I scrimped and saved for a few years until I had it. I was making OK money but certainly not 6 figures. I recognize it would be more difficult today, but clearly not totally impossible. OTOH there was no Doordash or similar back then and I wasn't ordering in meals or buying $10 lattes every day either.

The entire university degree trend is a big problem. Young people go to university for years, leave with a degree in the Arts or Womens Studies to cite a couple of typical examples, rack up 6 figures in student loan debt, then discover they are ill-suited to actually find a decent-paying job in many of those fields because there is little demand. If they had gone into a trade they would have avoided that debt completely and after a couple of years apprenticeship, would not only be in a position to make very good money, but also find that their skills were in great demand. The plumber charging $75 per man-hour is not hurting financially and typically can work over 40 hours a week if they choose to. That means a very good living.

But society has brainwashed many young people that a university degree is necessary. Govt has contributed to that by allowing universities to enrich themselves via large real estate holdings, generous govt funding, and continued overpayment of largely unproductive faculty and administration. They are also promoting and enabling these young people to incur all of that debt. Meanwhile the trade schools are largely the poor cousins and need some significant image-polishing to make them more appealing to young people making career decisions.

Add to that govt policy to encourage immigration, increasing the demand for housing, historically low interest rates for many years, and federal injections of huge amounts of cash into the economy, and it is no wonder that the housing market has become so overheated. But it is a problem largely of our own making, not shadowy 1%ers and offshore speculators for the most part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 2:24 PM
OliverD OliverD is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
That is a series of complex questions and I do not have the answers but I would make a few points. The first is that even as useless a Council as ours needs to tread very carefully if they were to go into blockbusting mode with planning regulations to allow large apartment blocks in existing long-developed single-family neighborhoods. Even the typical oblivious HRM voter might be stirred into action to to throw the bums out after they learn that their well-kept 1940s upper middle-class enclave of SFHs is being invaded by 20-storey glass apartment blocks.
Densification does not necessarily mean upzoning single family home lots to allow 20-storey apartment buildings. I'm not aware of any North American cities that have done that across the board. Rather, the trend is for "gentle density", allowing for single family homes to be converted into 2-6 unit buildings, or allowing that many units on a smaller lot, allowing ADUs, etc. Along the edges of single family neighbourhoods you may see larger buildings, particularly along transit lines.

Quote:
The CMHC requirement for a 20% down payment probably is not helping either. So govt requires at least a $100K down payment on that entry-level $500K home if I understand the rules correctly.
CMHC does not require 20% down. The minimum down payment is still 5% for properties under $1M.

Quote:
Add to that govt policy to encourage immigration, increasing the demand for housing, historically low interest rates for many years, and federal injections of huge amounts of cash into the economy, and it is no wonder that the housing market has become so overheated. But it is a problem largely of our own making, not shadowy 1%ers and offshore speculators for the most part.
Definitely agree with this. Lots of scapegoats people like to blame but it really just comes down to the fact that we have not been building enough housing for many years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 4:16 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverD View Post
Rather, the trend is for "gentle density", allowing for single family homes to be converted into 2-6 unit buildings, or allowing that many units on a smaller lot, allowing ADUs, etc. Along the edges of single family neighbourhoods you may see larger buildings, particularly along transit lines.
I'm not against it per se but people often leave out the part where if you want to allow 2x the density instead of 30x you need to redevelop 15x more land. Implicit in this, for a lot of people, is probably the notion that the same volume of projects would happen but they'd just be 6 storeys instead of 20-30, and that's preferable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2022, 4:57 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverD View Post
CMHC does not require 20% down. The minimum down payment is still 5% for properties under $1M.
Ah, my mistake. I confused that with the figure that requires mortgage insurance.

I also left out the federal First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, which provides 5% of the purchase price of an existing home, or 5% or 10% of the purchase price of a newly constructed home to first-time buyers, with repayment at time of resale or after 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 3:11 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Why can't people afford homes? I'm not so sure they can't. Just watching the overheated real estate market in the last year or so, all those overpriced houses are selling quickly, and it's not all overseas speculators as the media like to tout. In my own neighborhood they are being bought up by ordinary folks, in many cases young couples. What they do or where they get their money I cannot say. The one common thing I can point to is that in my experience they are dual-income couples, with good but not necessarily great jobs. Maybe mom and dad helped them with the down payment, I don't know. But they are toting the note, as the saying goes, on the monthly payment. They are not living in poverty afterwards either.
You are right in that "people" can still afford homes, but I don't think anybody can deny that the bar is being raised. The rise in prices has a trickle down effect that is excluding people who could previously afford places who can't now. I dunno... maybe people are more comfortable with higher levels of debt now?

As to your other points, I appreciate the perspective. Can't really argue with most of what you said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 7:39 AM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
The housing question will only be solved when both the province and municipality are dissolved and instead Fares, Metlege and the Ghosns form their own council ruling over NS and HRM. Any environmentalists, NIMBYs and social justice warriors must also move to New Brunswick. Remove rent controls too, we need rent increase minimums! Give all homeless a free bus ticket to Moncton. C’mon people, show some innovation!

Clearly all these ideas reflect what I believe.

In all seriousness, meh article from an irrelevant university. My reaction is a mix of “obviously” but also “not exactly”. So far housing starts have hit record levels, but populations within long established neighborhoods have declined due to a smaller number of wealthier people now living in them without new development.
__________________
Haligonian in exile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 3:15 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
I would guess that environmentalist aims have very high support and they are often reasonable. However the problem in Halifax is that you can find a stream on or a lake near any proposed site and argue that a huge buffer needs to be created for environmental purposes, such that high density or transit-friendly development is de facto banned in greenfield areas (don't even think about putting tall towers in!). I get the impression that the wealthier and more engaged neighbourhoods end up with the most "sensitive" natural areas near them that are the most likely to become parks (e.g. the buffer between Boulderwood/Williams Lake and Spryfield).

HRM does not do well with accessibility of these natural areas either. A lot of them are just informal trails you get to by car in some subdivision or they have no access at all and they're backyards for the residents nearby. Maybe the federal urban park program will change that somewhat.

Last edited by someone123; Apr 29, 2022 at 3:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 8:35 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
However the problem in Halifax is that you can find a stream on or a lake near any proposed site and argue that a huge buffer needs to be created for environmental purposes, such that high density or transit-friendly development is de facto banned in greenfield areas (don't even think about putting tall towers in!). I get the impression that the wealthier and more engaged neighbourhoods end up with the most "sensitive" natural areas near them that are the most likely to become parks (e.g. the buffer between Boulderwood/Williams Lake and Spryfield).
While I understand your point, I can't help but see that view as being a touch cynical. IMHO, while I'm sure there is a degree of NIMBYism going on in some of the protests/obstructions, I have to believe in most cases that people have legitimate concerns in that they don't want natural areas that are considered important to be spoiled or damaged, and whatever animals that are left living there (or use the area while in transit) to be negatively affected. It would also be natural for somebody who lives in the area and is very familiar with the area to have the strongest concern... i.e. you wouldn't expect somebody from Spryfield to be concerned about a small wetland in Eastern Passage, as they probably wouldn't even know it existed.

I think there is a divide between the group that sees a natural landscape as an opportunity for development and the one that sees the natural landscape as a thing of beauty that should be preserved. I used to be firmly in the camp of the former, but am finding myself swaying more to the latter these past number of years. I am finding myself less agreeable with the end point of unbridled urbanism - i.e. every square inch of land taken up by highrises, bike lanes, and transit routes, with the idea of natural landscape to be a quaint little preserved park area in the middle of all the steel and concrete, or controlled areas kept natural so that we can still have places to hike and bike, but not too far away from our favourite coffee shop...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 8:44 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
While I understand your point, I can't help but see that view as being a touch cynical.
Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erns-1.6314151

Almost all of the periphery of the metro area has some wetlands of the type described in there. There have been similar fights around Mainland South with a lot of that land being taken off the table (really there is a ring around Halifax). Will there be opposition to developing the sensitive wetlands surrounding the new Burnside Expressway? I saw similar comments about the Sandy Lake area near Bedford/Sackville.

I don't deny that these are nice natural areas but a lot of NS is similar and there needs to be some way to square growth with development. Saving some wetlands near the city is not necessarily even a net win for the environment if it just pushes the sprawl farther out. I wonder if HRM has any clear plan about where the development can go (not just ad hoc "wait for a developer to want to develop their land then have people come out of the woodwork to oppose it") and why something like Southdale seems to be in the process of being hashed out. There does not appear to be anything like HRM by Design or the Centre Plan around the suburban fringe that makes those trade-offs in a coordinated way at the planning stage. I wonder if this contributed to the urgency that caused the province to step in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2022, 9:11 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,078
"It would also be natural for somebody who lives in the area and is very familiar with the area to have the strongest concern"

Yes it's all perfectly natural. Until one starts to wonder why the concerns didn't exist when these people came to live there. I guess they just happened to get the last non-sensitive lots which are all surrounded by sensitive habitat. So their moving in was perfectly fine but anyone else would be a disaster.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2022, 4:37 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erns-1.6314151

Almost all of the periphery of the metro area has some wetlands of the type described in there. There have been similar fights around Mainland South with a lot of that land being taken off the table (really there is a ring around Halifax). Will there be opposition to developing the sensitive wetlands surrounding the new Burnside Expressway? I saw similar comments about the Sandy Lake area near Bedford/Sackville.
Sure, but that isn't to say that there aren't valid concerns, as in the article you linked to:
Quote:
According to a retired biology professor who has visited the site a number of times, it is not just a wetland, but a watercourse.

David Patriquin said he does not believe widening the buffer zone will protect the area.

"There's fairly steeply sloping land on either side of it, and that's the land they are developing, so I don't think it's got a chance ... it's just not going to survive as it is," said Patriquin, a member of the Nova Scotia Wild Flora Society.
I think it's reasonable to expect HRM to have a plan in place to deal with such things (don't they already?), but I also think it's not necessarily a good idea to assume the city is always right.

Perhaps I shouldn't have commented, but every time I hear/read the narrative being repeated over and over, I always have to think that not everybody who speaks out is a NIMBY just looking after their own interests. I really don't think that the population has sunk to such a low level (yet?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2022, 4:47 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
"It would also be natural for somebody who lives in the area and is very familiar with the area to have the strongest concern"

Yes it's all perfectly natural. Until one starts to wonder why the concerns didn't exist when these people came to live there. I guess they just happened to get the last non-sensitive lots which are all surrounded by sensitive habitat. So their moving in was perfectly fine but anyone else would be a disaster.
So you're suggesting that nobody should live in a house (or condo) that was previously built near sensitive lands, because some previous builder, maybe even 50 or more years ago, built in an area when the effects of building on that environment weren't fully understood (or cared about)?

I think it's good to learn from mistakes in the past and insist on it being done better moving forward. I think that's the point that is trying to be made by most of the people raising concerns. Does that not sound reasonable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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