HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2015, 2:49 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I sure wouldn't let a six year old cross Wyse Rd by himself.
My first day at primary school I got on the wrong bus - all on my own. No big deal, just had to walk across a field to the house.
No parents around because the dads were at work and the mothers were at home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2015, 1:11 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,224
Hilarious discussion in the comments (full disclosure: I joined in) on this badly-headlined story in Metro on this:

http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/138...-in-dartmouth/

Protect the Peelers!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 7:57 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Protect the Peelers!
I will give Keith prop's for this one - best 'Save the <Insert cause here>' I've heard yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 9:25 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I will give Keith prop's for this one - best 'Save the <Insert cause here>' I've heard yet.


I was going to go with "Save the Strippers" or "Friends of the Floozies" but the "Peeler" word is very underrated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 10:42 AM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,535
The comments in Metro for seem to be more in favor of the proposal. I believe it does the above comments justice as it was stated that many in favor never attend these public hearings. I am one of them. I am busy watching my "city" grow instead of trying to hold it back. Public Close Minded meetings are a waste of time.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 5:20 PM
scooby074 scooby074 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Protect the Peelers!
Hee hee. Peelers. That word takes me back
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2015, 1:06 AM
essaysmith's Avatar
essaysmith essaysmith is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: HRM
Posts: 43
The person that says they recently bought a property there and they "cry to think of the privacy they will lose" is ridiculous. I looked at buying that same house a few months back and the real estate agent told me straight up that the property was going to be redeveloped into condos. They knew when they bought and figured they could derail the development to keep things as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 8:50 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
At long last, the Harbour East community council has given the go-ahead to developer Ken Anthony’s proposal.

But it wasn’t without another effort by some vocal opponents to derail the plan. According to AllNovaScotia, about 60 people filled the gallery for last night’s public hearing, most of them to oppose the plan. After councillors unanimously approved the project, they responded with cries of “shame, shame”.

The building remains at a towering ten stories, replacing the decaying, fire-damaged eyesore that is the former Little Nashville country bar/Sensations strip club. Councillor McCluskey, in her usual understated fashion, opined that the 80-unit project (to include 72 apartments and eight townhomes) will be an improvement over the “drunks, strippers and prostitutes” that used to frequent the area.

Planner Mitch Dickey, in his seven-page report, said the present property is “derelict” and big enough to handle an infill development of this size.

After previous consultations with the community, the developer reduced the size of the building from 12 stories and 90 units, but the opponents wanted no more than four to six. One called the project “encroaching, invasive”, “over-development”, and “much, much, much too big”.

No word on what Anthony’s construction schedule might look like.

The few naysayers notwithstanding, I believe that most Dartmouthians will applaud this redevelopment of a long-neglected corner of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 12:25 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
The few naysayers notwithstanding, I believe that most Dartmouthians will applaud this redevelopment of a long-neglected corner of the city.


As far back as I can remember, the building housed The Matador, The Crazy Horse, Little Nashville, and the strip club. I don't know much about the history of the building beyond that.

I would think that most residents that remember all the drunken noise and antics that happened when the club let out at 3am would welcome a residential development. Not to mention having a vacant, run-down fire hazard in their neighborhood currently.

I actually think that several properties in that neighborhood are ripe for development, and maybe this one will be the kickoff for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 12:36 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,675
Get er done !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 7:15 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,209
" Planner Mitch Dickey, in his seven-page report, said the present property is “derelict” and big enough to handle an infill development of this size. "
It is derelict because Mr Dickey met with the owner Kenneth Anthony when the owner was considering a project of 3 storeys several years ago and Mr Anthony was told that if he waited he 'may be able to get more height'. I am quoting the owner from his appearance at the June 9 2016 Appeals Cttee hearing that I attended.
Extracts from the minutes : " Mr. Anthony explained that he has followed through with all of the Standing Committee’s requests (e.g.painting and securing the building). He pointed out that the development application has been ongoing for approximately five and a half (5½) years and spoke to the delay in the staff report .........And Mr. Anthony spoke to his original intent to renovate the existing building and develop 11 apartments;however in discussions with planning staff, the proposed development has changed for the site..."
Note that the minutes are not a verbatim account of the hearing; available here :
http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCap...nts/160609.pdf

Later in the meeting during Public Participation there was concern raised about the inactio/actions of planning staff on two issues. The first issue related to the recent refusal of building permits in rural HRM. Cllr Hendsbee told residents that the adoption of RP+5 wiped out the ability to build on lots abutting certain roads - a change that was never spelled out in the RP+5 documents.
The second issue concerned an application for a condo at Portland and the Circumferential that has been under consideration for more than 5 years and now 15 months after approval the project is held up because of HRM staff intransigence over a few words in a document related to the purchase of provincial land by the developer.
Few people know that 30 non-union planning managers receive performance based pay, and councillors don't know how the bonuses are determined.
The issue of rural lot development is getting quite heated and will receive more media coverage in the next few weeks.

Last edited by Colin May; Sep 10, 2016 at 1:06 AM. Reason: incomplete sentence in the last sentence of the first paragraph re comments by Cllr Hendsbee
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 11:48 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Later in the meeting during Public Participation there was concern raised about the inactio/actions of planning staff on two issues. The first issue related to the recent refusal of building permits in rural HRM. Cllr Hendsbee told residents that the adoption of RP+5 wiped out the ability to build on roads - a change that was never spelled out in the RP+5 documents.
The second issue concerned an application for a condo at Portland and the Circumferential that has been under consideration for more than 5 years and now 15 months after approval the project is held up because of HRM staff intransigence over a few words in a document related to the purchase of provincial land by the developer.
Few people know that 30 non-union planning managers receive performance based pay, and councillors don't know how the bonuses are determined.
The issue of rural lot development is getting quite heated and will receive more media coverage in the next few weeks.

Seems like the Planning Dept is on a bit of a intransigent power trip.

Isn't this the same sort of behavior that led to Mr. Bjerke being asked to leave the employ of his previous job?

Sounds like another awful HRM hire. Overpaid and not serving the interests of the municipality. Will be interesting to see if the new politically-minded CAO decides to protect and defend the bloated, overpaid HRM bureaucracy or instead directs them to listen to/serve the interests of the citizenry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 4:56 PM
FuzzyWuz FuzzyWuz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 323
According to naysayers the occupants will do nothing but drive in and out of the parking garage at high speed at all hours of the day and night creating unacceptable levels of traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 7:54 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz View Post
According to naysayers the occupants will do nothing but drive in and out of the parking garage at high speed at all hours of the day and night creating unacceptable levels of traffic.
40% of the units are for 'affordable housing' and the province is giving the developer $25,000 per unit. Joanne Bernard spoke in favour and said her department is working with the developer on similar projects across the province. The province will also provide rent supplements to those receiving social assistance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 8:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
40% of the units are for 'affordable housing' and the province is giving the developer $25,000 per unit. Joanne Bernard spoke in favour and said her department is working with the developer on similar projects across the province. The province will also provide rent supplements to those receiving social assistance.
Maybe that is what those opposed were actually against. The objections raised may have been code for "keep them people on assistance away from us!".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2016, 10:46 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Maybe that is what those opposed were actually against. The objections raised may have been code for "keep them people on assistance away from us!".
Nope. Annoyed about height,shadow and traffic. Most people had spoken by the time Minister Bernard spoke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 12:29 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Maybe that is what those opposed were actually against. The objections raised may have been code for "keep them people on assistance away from us!".
Which would seem an odd NIMBY thing to say, given that large density public housing is directly across Wyse Road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2017, 2:49 PM
FuzzyWuz FuzzyWuz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 323
Coming down soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2017, 5:35 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz View Post
Coming down soon.
Cannot be soon enough, what an eyesore and blight on the neighborhood; not that I have strong feelings about this
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2017, 2:54 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,535
There was a work stoppage ordered yesterday for this site. I am not sure for how long.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
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 > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.