I can't believe this got past the editorial staff without a re-write.
D- pending a makeup paper.
This is why Halifax can't have nice things and is going nowhere.
Wow the authors of this piece just got destroyed in the comments section. Do they read these things? Should give them something to think about.
I'd love to see 48 storey buildings in HFX. Some heritage group would have a collective heart attack though.
This is trash "journalism", go back under your rock.
What is even more offensive than some garbage-eater at the Coast disproving of a development like this is that the Downtown Halifax Business Commission is against this too.
Their "logic" can be found here:
Lots of fear based platitudes against developments that "don't fit" within the guidelines of HRM By Design - a plan created at a time when a development such as Skye weren't even on the radar - is all they can come up as detractors.
Even though it would inject millions into the Downtown, substantially raise the tax base, and provide space for thousands of new residents in an area that has seen very little growth to achieve the tepid targets the city itself has set for the area.
This project doesn't "violate" Halifax By Design. As with any document, it is a living breathing entity that could never be designed to forsee all the changes that can occur in the future. Perhaps you have mis-understood what Halifax By Design was - it certainly wasn't meant as a panacea to placate the Luddites, because nothing will ever be good enough to satisfy them. It is a guideline, but not one that is written in stone.
Their ignorance of modern urban planning best practices should really force them (and the writers at the Coast) to take a back seat to discussions of this nature since they are obviously ill-equipped to understand them.
Perhaps Paul MacKinnon and Chris Benjamin can apply for jobs at the Heritage Trust when they feel they have done enough damage to our city and business community in their current positions.
I just don't see how you can leap from "progress traps" to Skye Halifax without offering any argument to sway the audience. Those, like me, who are on the fence here are left realizing that you have no argument, and just made a useless editorial piece.
I think Chris must have been using Tim's desk and found his stash of the really good stuff. :)
Nice one Meags!!
If you are against intensification and densification of our city centre, you must be for suburban sprawl then? How environmentally concious of you, I'm sure your forefathers from Easter Island are very proud of you.
Oh you're not for suburbanization? So instead as a city we should forestall any and all growth instead of when it comes in the form of four story buildings that can't even begin to have their development costs covered unless they rent for more than $2000 a month?
That's big of you.
Densification means the efficient use of city services, protecting our open spaces and containing gridlock. So smart growth means densification of the Regional Centre.
Urban design that promotes a higher density of buildings and public spaces (in conjunction with other conditions such as mixed use, good building design and adequate open space) can:
*Provide cost savings in land, infrastructure and energy
*Reduce the economic costs of time spent travelling
*Help concentrate knowledge and innovative activity in the core of the city
be associated with lower crime and greater safety
*Help preserve green spaces in conjunction with certain kinds of urban development
*Reduce runoff from vehicles to water, and emissions to the air and atmosphere (though air emissions may be more locally concentrated)
*Help encourage greater physical activity, with consequent health benefits
promote social connectedness and vitality.
There is clear evidence about some of the savings offered by high urban density. Market demand leads to high land prices in dense city centres, and provides an impetus to economise on land resources. There are also infrastructure savings (eg, on roads, sewerage, schools). High density also leads to energy savings, with significant reductions in fossil-fuel use and car dependence - especially in cities with multiple compact centres like ours.
More general economic benefits of high urban density include enhanced ability to attract and concentrate businesses that are not space-intensive, such as knowledge-based industries, and to offer people better access to job opportunities.
Overall pollution from vehicle emissions can be less in dense cities, providing development is carefully located and directed. Infill development is also shown to create less runoff and water pollution.
Urban density and green space are sometimes suggested to be incompatible. It is certainly clear that green space in the city contributes to public health, quality of life and biodiversity. This value is reflected in property prices around iconic green spaces. But it is less clear how much green space is needed to generate these benefits. Incorporating large tracts of green space into the city can create problems elsewhere. It may push development to the periphery where it changes the nature of adjoining rural areas, and generates more traffic and raises the costs of doing business in the wider urban area. Think Bedford West.
Cities in which compact centres are interspersed with green areas, like Dartmouth and Halifax are belssed with, may offer the best solution to these problems.
The fiscal benefits of more compact urban design (i.e., mixed land uses & higher densities) also include reduced health care costs. Research fact sheets released last month by the Inst. of Planners and Heart & Stroke Foundation summarize Canadian-based evidence about our built environment and impact on human health.
Until the 1990s, exclusive suburban homes that were accessible only by car cost more, per square foot, than other kinds of housing. Now, however, these suburbs have become overbuilt, and housing values have fallen. Today, the most valuable real estate lies in walkable urban locations. Many of these now pricey places were slums just 30 years ago.
Different infrastructure needs to be built, including rail transit and paths for walking and biking. Some research has shown that walkable urban infrastructure is substantially cheaper on a usable square foot basis than spread-out drivable suburban infrastructure; the infrastructure is used much more extensively in a small area, resulting in much lower costs per usable square foot.
It’s important that developers and their investors learn how to build places that integrate many different uses within walking distance. Building walkable urban places is more complex and riskier than following decades-long patterns of suburban construction. But the market gets what it wants, and the market signals are flashing pretty brightly: build more walkable, and bikable, places.
In short, your mis-guided analogies aren't only wrong, but dangerous for the sustainability of our city and will only re-enforce the continuing trend of the suburbanization of HRM. Good work.
This article is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
ok... this article make no sense. On one hand he talks about the Rapa Nui deforesting and depleting all their resources to erect statues. And then tries to compare it to a 48 story building that consolidates some of the sprawl we are experiencing. The sprawl by way causes
traffic congestion, consumes wooded land, increases the cost of services, and so on.
There isn't even a valid analogy. With densification it is possible to drive your bike to work a couple of kilometers , instead of 10k while breathing in the exhaust of the commuters who live in the distant burbs.
quote- "It wastes the resources that could be spent on improved healthcare, sustainable
food, physical activity, education and art."
A 48 story building uses less power , water , materials, than the equivalent 4 story buildings.
it leaves arable land alone, you can walk to work , and it probably will have an art gallery in it ! sheeesh... if you are trying weaponize an argument , at least make some sense ...
And for the record- I think the building should be kept within the HRM By Design guidelines
Nice one Chris!
Lets just blame the Salmon $hit, lice and dead zone on CO2 and "climate change". That way, a large amount of taxpayer money will be granted to study it. The computer models will determine that open net Salmon farming is bad due to global warming and recommend a generous buyout of the companies involved in the salmon farms.
All the NDP supporters have gone silent on the issue.
There is conflict with land/coast based fish farming. Do you suppose the fish farm industry could work in the lee side areas around Sable Island? That's about 175 km away from the nearest rivers and lobster. (I'm only guessing there are no lobsters around Sable Island)
I feel bad for people who feel like they have to ridicule those that are trying to build a sense of community in their own neighborhoods. Perhaps instead of taking the time to call others self-centered and selfish, that energy should be put into trying to build a better sense of community in their own area. Although I question that ability from someone with the mentality to not see the good in this initiative for everyone.
What a self-centered and selfish concept! These people own their properties, but they do not own the STREET. That belongs to all of us as a public right of way. Perhaps I should put up fences to block the sidewalk in front of my house? Ridiculous.
AW. I used to live on Belle Aire. That was the best neighbourhood ever. As a single girl moving from rural NB, I always felt safe and welcome in that area. I miss it, sad to say I'm back in NB...
Dexter applied for the job as the Michelin man but he was turned down, never having fully recovered from that set back he threw his hat into the political arena just when the Tories were throwing up all over themselves and the Lieberals were mopping up and filling up their election coffers. The only good thing about Dexter is that he it so clueless that he is harmless, that is why every second day or so we are treated to the likes of Moan Jessome and her crew squawking about union rights, as if she and her gang ever did anything to advance the cause except make people nauseous just looking at their ugly mugs.
If there is a conflict between environmental stewardship and jobs, protecting jobs almost always wins out. Doesn't matter what party you belong to.
Provincial parties are also closer to the metal than federal parties are. Provincial NDP parties have formed governments, so they have to tone down the rhetoric and get real. It's not just NS, see this article about the Manitoba NDP and the environment: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/w…
It would also help if citizens were not schizophrenic about the issues. People talk a good game when it comes to Green but you don't see too many of 'em actually making lifestyle adjustments. Note I said "adjustments", not "sacrifices". Apparently having decorative shrubbery in your new subdivision on that erstwhile wetland counts as environmentalism. Point being, if a government - any government - doesn't see the voter base putting up, why would the government?
Search 100s of Halifax restaurants, bars and cafes
Interior design and home accessories in Halifax.
All the beer, all over town
Designers, stores and fashion, all locally-sourced.
The Coast's Well Being Guide
The best of everything Halifax has to offer.
The official handbook to student life in Halifax.
Halifax's best independent stores and boutiques
2013 Reader Survey results
The couple's guide to everything.
300+ Ways to Live Sustainably
Halifax's sex secrets revealed
Coast Publishing Ltd.