[Halifax] Artillery Place Landmark | 26 m | 8 fl | Proposed

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I understand that Mason may be in a difficult spot because he can't run around bending the rules for some projects and not for others, but I think this parcel has been assigned an excessively low height limit.

I agree. I think one weak aspect of HbD is that it focused too much on "ideal" heights for different neighbourhoods. I'm sure it would look great if all of these sites were built out to their specifications, but the reality is that a bunch of them are off the table for one reason or another and developers are constrained to build things that are economically viable.

I suspect that part of why the height limits ended up so short is that the public consultation process is naturally slanted somewhat toward NIMBYs. There are a lot more anti-development people with time on their hands and it's hard to developers to argue to protect plans they haven't even formulated yet.

If you plan for a built-out neighbourhood to have just the right density (Paris-style, with good street wall to street width ratios and so on) and half of the sites are taken off the table then you end up with an underdeveloped, struggling neighbourhood (e.g. "upper" streets like Market). It would have been much better for the HbD heights to err a little on the taller end.

[Waye Mason]

The only exceptions to HRMbD height limits have been because of policy 89. They have not proposed a policy 89 exemption, in fact, Landmark appears to think they can do 8 stories by right (as stated by the owner in a story in Allnovascotia.com Feb 4).

They can apply for an MPS amendment, but that process takes 3 years and will be recommended against by staff and I will vote against it. The whole point of HRMbD was a balanced approach to development that included extensive consultation that lead to increased by right height, so we would have predictable and consistent planning. If HRM starts to entertain MPS amendments then HRMbD goes out the window and we go back to pro vs anti-developement house to house project to project fighting (development Stalingrad).

Bonus height is determined in HRMbD. Pre and post bonus heights are not a matter for negotiation, they are in the bylaw already. The proponent knows this. The pre and post bonus heights on that block are 16m.

I support 30 stories in Cogswell. I support Cunard Block on the waterfront. I voted for 18 stories at Robie Demone. I have voted FOR 100+ projects, and voted against 4 projects in 20 months. To say I am anti-development is just simple wrong, and to say that my job is to approve everything all the time is wrong. I campaigned and was elected to defend and promote HRMbD, that was part of my platform, and I will do that.

My pitch to you is the rest of the population in Halifax and Dartmouth will NEVER support giving high by right heights and mass under the Centre Plan if site plan approval basically becomes a minimum that can be exceeded. If site plan approval is to work and be supported by the residents, it has to be a commitment to balance, giving rights but providing guarantees that "if I agree to this, this is what your going to give me."

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Pedantic height fixation aside, the city is very definitely moving in the right direction. Just a stroll through downtown and the North End reveal that--huge facelifting, re-reinvestment, and urbanization going on. The Spring Garden area overall is seeing major positive change, and Agricola is becoming a true and proper main street. New residential and commercial architecture is rapidly improving, and the retail scene is filling with lots of young entrepreneurs successfully making ambitious new ventures. There's hardly a central neighbourhood not visibly improving and infilling--so I wouldn't let these silly height debates keep you away, annoying as they are. We spend a lot of time talking about them, but the change on the ground over even a couple of years ago is readily apparent. I think it's an optimistic time.

Very true. Whenever I walk through the North End, I'm surprised by what I find, new little eateries and shops. Reminds me of Kensington area in Toronto a bit.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The only exceptions to HRMbD height limits have been because of policy 89. They have not proposed a policy 89 exemption, in fact, Landmark appears to think they can do 8 stories by right (as stated by the owner in a story in Allnovascotia.com Feb 4).

They can apply for an MPS amendment, but that process takes 3 years and will be recommended against by staff and I will vote against it. The whole point of HRMbD was a balanced approach to development that included extensive consultation that lead to increased by right height, so we would have predictable and consistent planning. If HRM starts to entertain MPS amendments then HRMbD goes out the window and we go back to pro vs anti-developement house to house project to project fighting (development Stalingrad).

Bonus height is determined in HRMbD. Pre and post bonus heights are not a matter for negotiation, they are in the bylaw already. The proponent knows this. The pre and post bonus heights on that block are 16m.

I support 30 stories in Cogswell. I support Cunard Block on the waterfront. I voted for 18 stories at Robie Demone. I have voted FOR 100+ projects, and voted against 4 projects in 20 months. To say I am anti-development is just simple wrong, and to say that my job is to approve everything all the time is wrong. I campaigned and was elected to defend and promote HRMbD, that was part of my platform, and I will do that.

My pitch to you is the rest of the population in Halifax and Dartmouth will NEVER support giving high by right heights and mass under the Centre Plan if site plan approval basically becomes a minimum that can be exceeded. If site plan approval is to work and be supported by the residents, it has to be a commitment to balance, giving rights but providing guarantees that "if I agree to this, this is what your going to give me."

Waye, I disagree with some points here, and will reply later, but I do want to say I (and I'm sure everyone else) appreciate you coming here and being straight, transparent, making your argument, and holding it out for debate and scrutiny.

It's a world of improvement over Peter "Mr. Secret Backroom Deal" Kelly.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'd be fine with this going to six storeys; perfectly reasonable infill height. Four seems too stubby for the neighbourhood, however, especially because the condo across the street (amusingly named "Heritage Way", despite the lack of anything heritage-y about it) is seven storeys. So assuming similar or slightly higher floor-ceiling heights, this one should be able to go to six storeys and have zero impact on the view from the Hill, which is already impinged upon. Plus the Martello tower, literally metres away, is something like twice this tall.

Really, once we start turning down projects in the single digits over height concerns, in the densest neighbourhood in the region, which already has many taller buildings anyway, we're getting ridiculous. I don't want a wall of towers along Brunswick Street turning the city into some sort of mini-Hong Kong, but that's not really a danger, is it?

Well said.

Also: how did we end up with 4 storeys as the height limit here, with Martello meters away? Did HRMxD basically ignore the height of existing buildings in imposing the stubby 4 storey limit here? That's not only a rule applied blindly as to its rationale, that's a rule applied without a rationale to begin with.

[Dmajackson]

IMO ~25 metres would be fine on this lot but I do respect HRMXD. As for scale Dresden Lofts is on the same block and got approved last year at 15 metres and it is on a much smaller lot so knocking this down to five floors should be fine.

As for the block's height limit rationale I think it has to do with it being between two national historic sites (R.A.P. and Citadel) and it being one of the smallest blocks downtown (where average blocks are still considered small compared to other cities).

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The only exceptions to HRMbD height limits have been because of policy 89. They have not proposed a policy 89 exemption, in fact, Landmark appears to think they can do 8 stories by right (as stated by the owner in a story in Allnovascotia.com Feb 4).

They can apply for an MPS amendment, but that process takes 3 years and will be recommended against by staff and I will vote against it. The whole point of HRMbD was a balanced approach to development that included extensive consultation that lead to increased by right height, so we would have predictable and consistent planning. If HRM starts to entertain MPS amendments then HRMbD goes out the window and we go back to pro vs anti-developement house to house project to project fighting (development Stalingrad).

Bonus height is determined in HRMbD. Pre and post bonus heights are not a matter for negotiation, they are in the bylaw already. The proponent knows this. The pre and post bonus heights on that block are 16m.

I support 30 stories in Cogswell. I support Cunard Block on the waterfront. I voted for 18 stories at Robie Demone. I have voted FOR 100+ projects, and voted against 4 projects in 20 months. To say I am anti-development is just simple wrong, and to say that my job is to approve everything all the time is wrong. I campaigned and was elected to defend and promote HRMbD, that was part of my platform, and I will do that.

My pitch to you is the rest of the population in Halifax and Dartmouth will NEVER support giving high by right heights and mass under the Centre Plan if site plan approval basically becomes a minimum that can be exceeded. If site plan approval is to work and be supported by the residents, it has to be a commitment to balance, giving rights but providing guarantees that "if I agree to this, this is what your going to give me."

This is simply a crass answer, You've voted yes on 100s of projects because you are obligated to but when it comes to small development projects like this and Coburg & Seymore proposal you show no objectivity and bring nothing to the table on improving small blocks, between Queen and Dresden is a very small vibrant area of shops that needs a residential boost and to simply lump this in with every height restriction of HRMbD is nonsensical and shows a complete inability for you to do your job other than phoning it in.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

IMO ~25 metres would be fine on this lot but I do respect HRMXD. As for scale Dresden Lofts is on the same block and got approved last year at 15 metres.

Which one is that? Google turns up no project by that name, so I'm curious to see it. Must've missed it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I know that one. Love it, especially the way it'll front Dresden Row and Queen identically.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Which one is that? Google turns up no project by that name, so I'm curious to see it. Must've missed it.

Check my map or developments thread if you need quick information on a project (links' are in my signature).

It was approved by the DRC on September 13th, 2013 ; Case #18707

Also a factual correction for someone earlier this development DOES lay in VIEWPLANE #9.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

IMO ~25 metres would be fine on this lot but I do respect HRMXD. As for scale Dresden Lofts is on the same block and got approved last year at 15 metres and it is on a much smaller lot so knocking this down to five floors should be fine.

As for the block's height limit rationale I think it has to do with it being between two national historic sites (R.A.P. and Citadel) and it being one of the smallest blocks downtown (where average blocks are still considered small compared to other cities).

I don't get the Citadel Height restrictions here. That seems pointless and clueless given that we are far across the street, and there are high rise condos near by! Nothing is being obscured.

So, if I don't get the Citadel rationale, I find the RAP rationale even more feeble and pointless. I wouldn't mind if the RAP was actually an open public area, but it's not. It's a complete waste of space. Just a fenced in lot, with privileged parking for military members. No public benefit. And here, it's depressing economic spin offs, by justifying dumb height limits where they're neither necessary, desirable, nor justifiable.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't get the Citadel Height restrictions here. That seems pointless and clueless given that we are far across the street, and there are high rise condos near by! Nothing is being obscured.

So, if I don't get the Citadel rationale, I find the RAP rationale even more feeble and pointless. I wouldn't mind if the RAP was actually an open public area, but it's not. It's a complete waste of space. Just a fenced in lot, with privileged parking for military members. No public benefit. And here, it's depressing economic spin offs, by justifying dumb height limits where they're neither necessary, desirable, nor justifiable.

There was talks years ago of the RAP being turned over to the city and being open space to the public or being developed but nothing ever came of it. The military was going to move to a different site because its become substantially less utilized over the years but the plans fell through and they decided to stay because some top brass got in a fuss over it. I agree its a huge waste of space in central core and no other city in north america would stand for it but then I don't think any other city would have let CFB take up such a massive area in the North End either.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The only exceptions to HRMbD height limits have been because of policy 89. They have not proposed a policy 89 exemption, in fact, Landmark appears to think they can do 8 stories by right (as stated by the owner in a story in Allnovascotia.com Feb 4).

They can apply for an MPS amendment, but that process takes 3 years and will be recommended against by staff and I will vote against it. The whole point of HRMbD was a balanced approach to development that included extensive consultation that lead to increased by right height, so we would have predictable and consistent planning. If HRM starts to entertain MPS amendments then HRMbD goes out the window and we go back to pro vs anti-developement house to house project to project fighting (development Stalingrad).

Bonus height is determined in HRMbD. Pre and post bonus heights are not a matter for negotiation, they are in the bylaw already. The proponent knows this. The pre and post bonus heights on that block are 16m.
.
.
.

I can see your point on this proposal, although I think some of the HRM_by_Design height limits are too restrictive. In my opinion there was little point for the land owner to propose a project that will almost certainly be rejected. On the other hand, I was happy to see the YMCA/CBC proposal get through the amendment process and I don't think that HRM_by_Design should be treated as being "etched in stone" since it is intended to be a living document that is open to review.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The only exceptions to HRMbD height limits have been because of policy 89. They have not proposed a policy 89 exemption, in fact, Landmark appears to think they can do 8 stories by right (as stated by the owner in a story in Allnovascotia.com Feb 4).

They can apply for an MPS amendment, but that process takes 3 years and will be recommended against by staff and I will vote against it. The whole point of HRMbD was a balanced approach to development that included extensive consultation that lead to increased by right height, so we would have predictable and consistent planning. If HRM starts to entertain MPS amendments then HRMbD goes out the window and we go back to pro vs anti-developement house to house project to project fighting (development Stalingrad).

Bonus height is determined in HRMbD. Pre and post bonus heights are not a matter for negotiation, they are in the bylaw already. The proponent knows this. The pre and post bonus heights on that block are 16m.

I support 30 stories in Cogswell. I support Cunard Block on the waterfront. I voted for 18 stories at Robie Demone. I have voted FOR 100+ projects, and voted against 4 projects in 20 months. To say I am anti-development is just simple wrong, and to say that my job is to approve everything all the time is wrong. I campaigned and was elected to defend and promote HRMbD, that was part of my platform, and I will do that.

My pitch to you is the rest of the population in Halifax and Dartmouth will NEVER support giving high by right heights and mass under the Centre Plan if site plan approval basically becomes a minimum that can be exceeded. If site plan approval is to work and be supported by the residents, it has to be a commitment to balance, giving rights but providing guarantees that "if I agree to this, this is what your going to give me."

Is 8 stories high?

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I can see your point on this proposal, although I think some of the HRM_by_Design height limits are too restrictive. In my opinion there was little point for the land owner to propose a project that will almost certainly be rejected. On the other hand, I was happy to see the YMCA/CBC proposal get through the amendment process and I don't think that HRM_by_Design should be treated as being "etched in stone" since it is intended to be a living document that is open to review.

Thank you for the balanced response - I think that if the heights were to be reviewed it has to be on a precinct basis, not on a site basis. Right now no developer is complaining about the heights in the rest of Spring Garden, and just up the street from there Pineau has built one 16m by right infill and has another coming. People are building at 16 metres and making money, otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am all for policy 89 exemptions if there is truly public good. The YMCA is a no brainer, it gives HRM a $45 million recreation facility in downtown for no more investment than allowing additional height on one of the two parcels. But policy 89 has to be public good, and public good isn't "I want to build a building".

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Is 8 stories high?

8 stories is higher than the 16m allowed, yes.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Well said.

Also: how did we end up with 4 storeys as the height limit here, with Martello meters away? Did HRMxD basically ignore the height of existing buildings in imposing the stubby 4 storey limit here? That's not only a rule applied blindly as to its rationale, that's a rule applied without a rationale to begin with.

The Martello/Parklane/Paramount/Lord Nelson Block is 49 m, that is how. Adjacency is not planning. The idea is the heights move downwards toward RA park, and hold the line at 8-9 stories along SGR. Map below (this is post bonus height, no by right height).

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

This is simply a crass answer, You've voted yes on 100s of projects because you are obligated to but when it comes to small development projects like this and Coburg & Seymore proposal you show no objectivity and bring nothing to the table on improving small blocks, between Queen and Dresden is a very small vibrant area of shops that needs a residential boost and to simply lump this in with every height restriction of HRMbD is nonsensical and shows a complete inability for you to do your job other than phoning it in.

I am not obligated to do a single thing that I didn't promise during the election. All I promised to residents was balanced approach to development - embracing the centre plan and HRMbD but protecting the neighbourhoods that are outside the designated development corridors and hot spots.

What I promised in August of 2012 is exactly what I am doing now:

Allowing medium to high-rise buildings in these designated areas has to be balanced against strong protection of housing stock in the rest of the peninsula. Not that residential homes can’t be renewed or replaced, but the low-rise residential character of these neighbourhoods must be preserved. Low-rise density, through row houses, should be encouraged where appropriate to provide new housing that will attract families.

None of this means rules can’t be changed or reviewed, but those reviews need to happen through the same open and engaged processes that created our plans in the first place, as a part of comprehensive reviews every five years. We need development by plan and design, not development by exception to the rules.

You can read whole thing here:
http://wayemason.ca/2012/08/29/development/

[Keith P.]

Mason is so tied to his slavish devotion to the deeply flawed HRMxD that he has lost whatever common sense he may have had. His job is not to be a push-button manager of planning strategies, putting the "NO!" into Nova Scotia; it is to review proposals that come along and see if they make sense in light of a great many factors, of which the planning designation is just one of many. We have well-paid HRM planners who can read the strategies, assess the proposals, and then provide advice to Council based on that. It is then the job of council to decide whether that advice makes sense. This is where he has abdicated his role and become a male version of Jennifer Watts. Sawing this off to 6 or 4 storeys makes no sense. Will he next be rejecting proposals because they are not clad in faux-Victorian red brick or have the wrong style of styrofoam cornices as per HRMxD? Between this and the Seymour St project he seems to want nothing at all built on the peninsula that you couldn't survive a fall off the roof. Ridiculous.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't think this is really a neighborhood context that needs protecting... its right downtown and proximity to citadel hill IS irrelevant with the taller buildings around. Is downtown not going to grow past its current status ever?

The rules here might be flawed if this many people are speaking out about it, just sayin.

[ILoveHalifax]

Wasn't Waye part of the original stadium committee who proposed a 7,000 seat stadium on SMU campus rather than something bigger?