[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[WestEndHali]

Sloane just tweeted a link to this article:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion...v9a1hk.twitter

Source: Chronicle Herald Online

[Keith P.]

Why would we care what a Toronto architect thinks? Don't the anti-development obstructionists always scream "We're not TORONTO!!!" right after the ever-popular "It's TOO TALL!!!"??

Frankly, that article reads like a list of 10 desperate reasons why no tall buildings should ever exist anywhere.

[halifaxboyns]

Mayoralty candidate has questions about approving 48-storey towers
(from the CH online)
Mayoral candidate Michael Savage said he is not convinced yet that the Skye Halifax proposal will fly.

Speaking to media after a 15-minute speech Friday to members of the Halifax Club, Savage said it is unclear if the twin, 48-storey towers proposed by United Gulf Developments Ltd. would satisfy criteria in HRM by Design that allow for height exemptions.

Regional council voted in February to send the proposal to the public hearing stage on the basis of Policy 89 in HRM by Design, which allows exemptions to be made if a development demonstrates “significant” economic, social or cultural benefits.

“I’m certainly not opposed to height,” Savage said. “I think we need height in the downtown, we need more density in the downtown, and I’m not convinced yet on Skye.

“I need to know that it sort of has a social good associated with it. I did support the original Twisted Sisters; with Skye, I think there are questions I would want to have answered.”

He supported council’s decision to relax the height restriction to 46 metres from 23 metres to allow a $22-million expansion of the downtown YMCA, which would include two 15-storey residential towers.

“I think that the YMCA building met that standard” in Policy 89, Savage said.

In his speech, he said that as a planning document, HRM by Design has “integrity” and is useful.

“I think HRM by Design is an example of a process that worked. It had many different points of view, and I don’t think anybody got everything that they wanted, but I think it provided some certainty. More certainty, at least, for development in the downtown core.

Savage touched on a number of different topics during his address, the first in a series the Halifax Club will hold for mayoral candidates. In the audience was Tom Martin, an ex-cop also running for mayor in October’s municipal elections.

Savage said his goal is to make Halifax a more livable, more inclusive and more entrepreneurial city, and pointed to entrepreneurs such as Paul O’Regan, Wadih Fares, Francis Fares and Louis Deveau as examples of Nova Scotia ingenuity.

“They made more real, honest, productive jobs than the government can ever imagine,” Savage told the audience. “Business, and mostly small to medium-sized business, that’s the horse in the job creation cart.”

Asked afterward how council could enact change to make Halifax more entrepreneurial, Savage said he thinks “there’s an opportunity to continue to streamline processes along the lines of HRM by Design, so that city staff feels empowered and feel challenged to make more things happen in the community.”

The rest of the story is here.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't know if its a good idea for him to come out in favour of height before the election. We all know who likes to come out to public meetings, voting, and let their voices be heard.

Obviously Skye is kind of a joke, and I agree with Savage's points... but I don't know if he is aware of certain council and special interest alliances against height and development. He better have some balls, otherwise this is going to turn into Peter Kelly II.

I really do hope he can get some thing accomplished that were thwarted by the anti-development groups under Kelly's leadership.

[Keith P.]

Peter Kelly is a proven disaster, but I have no faith that Mike Savage will be much better. His positions on issues to date have been pretty much non-existent and then he says this. I have little confidence he has what it takes to be mayor.

[kph06]

I'm not sold on Savage. I was hoping after Kelly dropped out we would get a second serious contender, but so far no luck.

[fenwick16]

I think that a change just for the sake of change is a mistake. Mayor Kelly has been Mayor long enough to know the ropes so I wish he would stay on as Mayor.

At this point I see a positive change in local area politics; I see a more progressive attitude, but will that continue under a new Mayor?

[RyeJay]

I don't see this as change just for the sake of it. Change is happening because Mayor Kelly's work has been met with concert-like scandals and only modest business successes.

Oh. And people think he's a scumbag, or at least I expect this view from old ladies.

Let's give Savage an opportunity, shall we? He certainly is not anti-development. He believes the downtown needs height, but density above all. I'm hoping he pushes for an HRM greenbelt so that core density may happen at a much healthier rate -- and this would include the densification of the suburbs as well!!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm hoping he pushes for an HRM greenbelt so that core density may happen at a much healthier rate -- and this would include the densification of the suburbs as well!!

The greenbelt is an EAC enviro-crazie idea that should be dismissed. We have plenty of green space here already. All it would do is drive the sprawl further out, making things even worse than they currently are. Especially since the EAC also opposes tall buildings on the peninsula.

[Hali87]

It could go either way, depending on where the greenbelt is. If Bedford West couldn't be built in its present location, for example, I don't think it's necessarily safe to assume that the people who would have moved there would move to Kingswood or Enfield or somewhere else much further out. Also just because some members of the EAC are against high-rises (Epstein for example...), that doesn't mean that everyone who is in support of a greenbelt is against high-rises.

[Empire]

The EAC is amusing at best. I am a promoter of green space in an urban environment. I think that the green space in HRM is seriously mismanaged. The Public Gardens should be open 365 days a year, Point Pleasant Park could be just that.... a pleasant park, but it is stuck in some silly no-mans land of false self-rejuvenation, we have very limited pocket parks like Victoria Park and the list goes on.

As far as a green belt goes for HRM one has to consider everything outside the city limits is a huge green belt. We don't have smog, we don't have industrial pollution, we don't have endless sprawl, we don't have kilometers of traffic tie-ups. We essentially have it pretty good.

What we need is a bit of a kick in terms of density, quality developments, better commuter options (commuter rail) and a sense of community that comes through projects like the Central Library and a much needed stadium.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

The EAC is amusing at best. I am a promoter of green space in an urban environment. I think that the green space in HRM is seriously mismanaged. The Public Gardens should be open 365 days a year, Point Pleasant Park could be just that.... a pleasant park, but it is stuck in some silly no-mans land of false self-rejuvenation, we have very limited pocket parks like Victoria Park and the list goes on.

As far as a green belt goes for HRM one has to consider everything outside the city limits is a huge green belt. We don't have smog, we don't have industrial pollution, we don't have endless sprawl, we don't have kilometers of traffic tie-ups. We essentially have it pretty good.

What we need is a bit of a kick in terms of density, quality developments, better commuter options (commuter rail) and a sense of community that comes through projects like the Central Library and a much needed stadium.

Well said Empire. I do wish that something could be done to curb sprawl... more taller buildings seems like the only real option.

[RyeJay]

People will not mass migrate to Kingswood or Enfield because HRM's sprawl is put to an end. To further guarantee an HRM greenbelt success, any community, which legally exists at the pleasure of the province, may have borders drawn around it as well. Enough with this reckless, sprawled development already!

Supporting a greenbelt actually means supporting high-rises as this is vital for densification. I don't care about a small, insignificant number of EAC members being against skyscrapers.

Municipal borders must be drawn in order to force future planning to use existing infrastructure, to curb city costs, and to protect the pathetically small amount of forested area that is left.

This effort may be futile, though. The remaining areas of forest we have are dying from drought and fire, flooding, and hungry southern insects.

Fact: All species of trees appear, function, and reproduce in a particular manner because they've slowly evolved in a particular climate -- which has been more rapidly changing. The trees cannot replace themselves, nor evolve, that rapidly.

And if you don't believe that, then you don't read.

[alps]

I haven't really been following the "Our HRM Alliance" proposal but I wish them luck. From what I've heard, the Ottawa greenbelt suffered from the sort of 'leapfrogging' development KeithP mentioned because it's too narrow, but the one in the Toronto area is working well (maybe Fenwick16 has something to say about that.) LRT/commuter rail would be a much more realistic idea if we had a greenbelt to encourage density.

Empire, I don't think our suburbs are nearly that peachy. We have no smog and industrial pollution because we have very little polluting industry. The form of the subdivisions is low-density housing choking gargantuan swaths of forests and lakes to house very few people for that magnitude of development. And when the city and province are looking to spend hundreds of millions -- perhaps over a billion, on new highways for a city of our size, I think we're doing something wrong.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by alps

I haven't really been following the "Our HRM Alliance" proposal but I wish them luck. From what I've heard, the Ottawa greenbelt suffered from the sort of 'leapfrogging' development KeithP mentioned because it's too narrow, but the one in the Toronto area is working well (maybe Fenwick16 has something to say about that.) LRT/commuter rail would be a much more realistic idea if we had a greenbelt to encourage density.

Empire, I don't think our suburbs are nearly that peachy. We have no smog and industrial pollution because we have very little polluting industry. The form of the subdivisions is low-density housing choking gargantuan swaths of forests and lakes to house very few people for that magnitude of development. And when the city and province are looking to spend hundreds of millions -- perhaps over a billion, on new highways for a city of our size, I think we're doing something wrong.

I have heard of the GTA greenbelt, but I seldom hear anything about it. However, the GTA is very spread out (but has a dense urban core); its commuters extend as far away as Kitchener/Cambridge in the west, Oshawa in the east and Barrie to the north. In my opinion, I don't think a greenbelt will have the desired effect. Although, the urban core should be densified there will still be people who will want to live in single family homes, as is the case in the GTA.

I think that development fees charged to developers might work (these extra charges would then be past on to home owners) . The fees could be lowest (or nil) near the urban core and more costly in the outer fringes. Then the most costly land to service will be penalized and developers must pay for the servicing costs. Tax reform would also help. Taxes should be lowered near the urban core and increased in the suburban outskirts. (However, this isn't the case in the GTA)

In all honesty, I am against a greenbelt.

[fenwick16]

Instead of a greenbelt, I thing Haligonians should push for a Northwest Arm crossing (it might have to be a tunnel). Then promote growth closer to the urban core by improving transit connections within the urban core.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

The EAC is amusing at best. I am a promoter of green space in an urban environment. I think that the green space in HRM is seriously mismanaged. The Public Gardens should be open 365 days a year, Point Pleasant Park could be just that.... a pleasant park, but it is stuck in some silly no-mans land of false self-rejuvenation, we have very limited pocket parks like Victoria Park and the list goes on.

As far as a green belt goes for HRM one has to consider everything outside the city limits is a huge green belt. We don't have smog, we don't have industrial pollution, we don't have endless sprawl, we don't have kilometers of traffic tie-ups. We essentially have it pretty good.

What we need is a bit of a kick in terms of density, quality developments, better commuter options (commuter rail) and a sense of community that comes through projects like the Central Library and a much needed stadium.

I'm not against a green belt, but not for it either. I prefer to look more to Portland's approach at establishing an urban growth boundary - which is essentially the same thing. Anything outside the boundary would be left to forest/farm/natural uses. Everything inside could be 'urban development' - which policy would then dictate to what extent. But the boundary would also take into account years of growth to HRM as well - Calgary's approach is typically 20 years.

That said - any attempt to develop an LRT system in the city may require the use of many of the landscaped boulevards throughout the city. My hope would be that rather than chop down the trees, they could be moved to PPP as part of the regrowth. Also, I totally agree about the public gardens. There is no reason it couldn't be open 365 days a year, but would likely need the paths made into concrete or asphalt instead of gravel.

In light of the ship building contract, I suspect people will see density coming whether they like it or not...

[someone123]

I think a greenbelt is a bad idea because it is yet more red tape added to a system that is already functioning poorly on more basic levels and is generating all sorts of perverse incentives to encourage bad development. A greenbelt is not going to work very well if we still overtax the urban core while the city continues to sell cheap land for commercial development on the urban fringe.

[beyeas]

Opinion piece in today's CH by one of the VPs at UG.

HRM council’s Feb. 21 informed decision to support the initiation of Skye project to the next public engagement level, is both justified and warranted.

Our detractors have suggested that the Skye project ignores the wishes of the public and undermines recently struck rules through HRM By Design. We wish to make it abundantly clear that United Gulf endorses HRM by Design and believes that the public and stakeholder community continues to be served well by it.

The rules being considered relative to the project have been in existence for decades and were not reviewed or brought forward for reconsideration relative to events leading to the establishment of HRM by Design.

...

Skye’s residents will spend $20 million on goods and services in the immediate trade area. It will be a sustainable development that will create a liveable and walkable neighbourhood. Skye does meet many of the guidelines of HRM by Design when considering criteria surrounding podium heights, tower set-backs, view plane and corridor views, green technology, and human-scale elements. Cities evolve and exceptions to planning rules must be considered when unique opportunities are presented. Skye is that unique opportunity.

The rest can be found here:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion...d-downtown-pie


Patrick LeRoy is vice president of operations for United Gulf Developments Limited and served as the development community representative on the HRM By Design Task Force (2009-2011).

[someone123]

That is a well-written and well-timed article. There's a huge amount of misinformation circling around the Skye proposal, and it's ridiculous that council voted twice on the question of whether or not to send it to public hearing.

Hopefully we will have a more competent council after the election.