It’s foolish for building height to be non-negotiable
Posted by lesmuise on April 12, 2008
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Sat. Apr 12 - 6:28 AM
THE DREAM for development in downtown Halifax is nice but it could use a good dose of economic realism.
The task force spearheading the HRM by Design plan for the downtown released its final draft Monday, and critics of all stripes are complaining about height restrictions.
Heritage groups call for more low-rise development in the downtown core, nothing higher than six or seven storeys. Developers and others who don’t believe heritage and height are mutually exclusive ideas argue the plan’s restrictions on height are short-sighted and run counter to the goal of creating a more vibrant downtown.
City representatives on the task force have insisted there is already plenty of opportunity to build in downtown Halifax under the proposed plan and therefore, there’s no need for buildings to go any higher than eight storeys in the key Argyle Street district.
The backers of HRM by Design insist that 4.4 million square feet of downtown office space could be created in the downtown under the plan. The Greater Halifax Partnership, which markets Halifax as a business destination, has concluded that there is only room for another 1.6 million square feet of office space in the central business district under existing bylaws.
The task force took into account the lands occupied by the controversial Cogswell interchange — which some suggest should be torn down to make way for more development — and includes what would happen if all buildings in the downtown were raised to the height proposed under the plan.
That is more than a little misleading because many of the low-rise buildings will not be expanded upwards and it brings into question the validity of the task force’s figures.
The committee’s plan indicates everything is negotiable when it comes to building in the downtown, everything except height. But one of the goals of HRM by Design is to increase the number of people working and living in the downtown. Critics point out that unless the height restrictions are negotiable, to allow for contract development in the downtown, there is little chance the plan will meet its population density target.
The design committee also wants to encourage developers to construct quality buildings. But the economics suggest that unless developers can find a reasonable way to recover construction costs, they will be reluctant to make significant investments in design and construction materials.
Allowing taller structures could have the effect of raising the level of construction quality and reducing the tendency towards building less-than-attractive squat, brick buildings, which seems to have become a trend in the downtown.
I’m sure the committee has heard it all and then some, but it is still inviting written submissions to be sent in until April 23 — the various ways of submitting may be found at http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/RegionalCentreUrbanDesignStudy.html.
The task force group will also be hosting another open house on Wednesday at the World Trade and Convention Centre. The first session will start with a presentation at 6 p.m. followed by a half-hour of public comment. A second presentation will be made at 7 p.m. followed by another half-hour of public reaction. Having attended the public session several months ago, I think it is unlikely that 30 minutes will be enough time to hear all those who will want to speak.
The formal report from the task force will be presented to city council in May, followed by another public hearing.
While city staff have indicated there aren’t a lot of developers rushing to file their projects with the city — so that they would be dealt with under the old rules rather than the strict height rules proposed in HRM by Design — I know at least one major downtown development will likely be presented to the city before the rules can be changed by city council.
It is foolish that it should come to this; height should be just as negotiable as the appearance of the building.
City staff have complained that the price of land in downtown Halifax has been the subject of speculation recently based on what developers believe could be built there, and therefore, is out of whack with reality.
How should property be priced in Canada? Perhaps city staff would like to have the authority to establish land prices as well.
It really doesn’t matter because it’s already too late. Developers have purchased property in the downtown with the expectation they will be able to build on their land. Is city council now willing to compensate those people who will be damaged by this design plan?
Roger Taylor’s column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday .
COMMENTS
Robert22 wrote:
I am weary of this city’s future; I read this week someone’s point that the city of Boston has been able to mix heritage and high rise, and they were right on the money. Let’s keep in mind the view we are protecting is a British fort that never fired a shot, so it is not exactly overlooking a significant piece of our history. And we are allowing a very small yet vocal minority to dictate the ability of the downtown core get past the boarded up properties we all see on Barrington Street, etc. I am weary of Don Mills’ group who will prop up a candidate in the fall (with a witch-hunt agenda against Peter Kelly), but our mayor shows no leadership. A ‘leader’ is someone who has a vision (based on gaining consensus) and then uses their political skills & capital to advance their agenda- without concern about what polls say or the possibility of not getting re-elected. If a leader acts against the will of the people, he or she will not stay in office. If that same leader shows that they possess ‘vision’ and lead us to that vision, they will be mayor, premier, dogcatcher for life. Peter Kelly and his marry band of councillors all lack this- they are reduced to petty bickering; infighting that will make a law banning cats in public the legacy of their public service. Time for a change folks. Time for someone on a grassroots level (no entry fee) to step up and say, “I see the future of this city, and I’m going to make it happen’.
Billp wrote:
Put the tall building in Burnside .
dartmo wrote:
Does no one see a role for downtown Dartmouth? Build the high buildings there and beef up the ferry system.
bluenosecamper wrote:
Has anyone thought about where those 16,000 people who will locate in the downtown area are going to park their large SUV’s and the like? To purchase or lease residential property in the downtown core will be very expensive, and these folks with the capital to do this will all have vehicles.
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion about keeping traffic off the peninsula. I think it is time someone, somewhere in this once great city, started to look at reality, and really start planning for the future of the city with sober minds. Forget billion $ bridges, there are better ways. And Mayor Kelly, please show some leadership in the whole matter, because you haven’t shown any so far.
I am a full time RV’er, and have travelled to many cities the size of HRM throughout the US and Canada. HRM is in a sorry state, and it is upsetting to see what others can achieve when minds work together in sensible directions, and yet HRM is stuck arguing about cats!!!!!!!
April 27, 2008 at 3:56 am
[...] realism. The task force spearheading the HRM by Design plan for the downtown released its finhttp://myhalifaxca.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/its-foolish-for-building-height-to-be-non-negotiable/BikePortland.org ? Blog Archive ? Burnside Bridge open to bikes …Jun 29, 2007 … Because of a [...]