Stillness fills the inside of St. John’s United Church, a large red-brick building at the corner of Windsor and Willow streets. The church was closed two years ago when structural and environmental assessments concluded the building was beyond repair. Worshippers now assemble at the nearby Maritime Conservatory.
Louisa Horne and Heather Bown have returned to their old haunt to discuss the proposal to redevelop St. John’s. Horne sits on the volunteer board overseeing the project while Brown, who works for Michael Napier Architecture, is its lead architect.Called SPIRIT Place, the redevelopment adds another dimension to the debate over architecture and development in this city.
Horne outlines the multi-use building’s components: a smaller church; “60-ish” seniors’ apartments (focusing on LGBT people as part of St. John’s “affirming” theology); meeting and community program space. “Social justice and social action are part of the foundation of this congregation,” she says.
SPIRIT Place proposes a height increase to seven storeys from the five that exist now—an increase of 11 feet from the current highest point, a peaked roof. Ample residential space is required to meet a real social need, says Horne. “There has been no affordable, independent seniors’ housing built on the peninsula in a very long time.”
The church will pay rent to the non-profit organization that runs SPIRIT Place. “Any profit that comes as the mortgage is paid off will have to, according to the bylaws, go into making the apartments more affordable,” she says.
Liz Cunningham peaks her fingers and then straightens them out, saying: “This is enormously different than this.”
Standing in her backyard on North Street, the brick facade of St. John’s is easily reached across the fence. Several houses on North back onto the church, forming another boundary. “Generally speaking it’s too large in height and volume for this residential neighbourhood,” says Cunningham.
The architects addressed that concern following previous public meetings, says Bown. “We took the top storey and we pinched it in,” she says. To further ease the impact, she adds, “We created a green roof around the entire perimeter of the top.”
Just ahead of Halloween’s costumed canvassers, opponents and proponents of SPIRIT Place’s design are going door-to-door to gauge and gather support. Cunningham belongs to a group of roughly 30 people who oppose the proposed design, not the “spirit” of SPIRIT Place. They live on surrounding streets and have collected over 125 signatures on a petition they’ll present to HRM.
HRM senior planner Luc Ouellet has met with both sides. He hopes to begin drafting his recommendation on SPIRIT Place to council, which approves or rejects the proposal, in late November. Jennifer Watt, the local councillor, has recused herself because she attends St. John’s.
“There’ve been quite a few churches that have come to us to ask for a specific set of amendments to allow them to do more than what their zone allows,” says Ouellet. “It has to do with churches closing. They’re putting their properties on the market.”
The St. John’s property is zoned R-2, a medium-density residential zone which allows no more than a three- or four-unit apartment building. But, Ouellet says, the SPIRIT Place board is well within its rights to apply to amend its designation under the Peninsula North Secondary Planning Strategy and form a development agreement with HRM. “We would put specific policies [in place] to allow for that to happen, and also specific policies to control. We would specify the height and whatnot for that agreement.”
This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 2, 2010.
Sean, your subtitle makes no sense. The conflict exists between NIMBYs and developers. Furthermore, the media seems to be missing the big point about this (and other) developments. It’s not the height that matters most, but rather, how the development interacts with the neighborhood at street level, and whether quality design and materials went into it. Whatever gets built, we will be stuck with it for a long time, so the emphasis should be on quality.
This conflict actually has many layers that aren’t being addressed by the media (the Coast, CBC radio and CBC tv). There has been very little explanation by the church of WHY the development needs to be so BIG. If this size and volume of building is the only way for the church to regain their costs, then they (a) shouldn’t have bought the house adjacent to the church in order to make the footprint of the new building even larger, before even knowing if the development would proceed, and (b) should have maybe examined their finances more closely so as not to make this “their one and only offer”. There has been very little attempt by the church to gain the community’s support for this development. Ask them how many non-congregation members of the community sit on their “community liaison committee”. The answer is none. They left one-by-one because of issues of non-transparency and disrespect.
It’s too bad that the media only sees litle bits of this issue, one article or news clip at a time, because there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.
Jennifer
Thank you very much for Sean Flinn’s balanced article about St. John’s United Church redevelopment proposal. I have read the article and still do not understand some things. Why is the proposal so large (7 stories, about 60 units)? Is this the only financially viable model for a project of this sort and why? What would a smaller proposal mean sacrificing? Would sacrificing size and volume hurt the Church in any way and would it not be better overall for neighbourhood residents of the community who live in an HRM R-2 zoned area.
St. John’s United Church Spirit Place organization has a very active voice on Skyscraperpageforum.com and have expressed support for and opinions about their development. It is very disappointing that they, like some other developers, wish to ignore the negative impact of building large units in residential neighbourhoods.
I support the purpose and intent of Spirit Place. My argument is with the size and scale of this massive proposal and the many regulations that will be broken by HRM if it is built as proposed.
To the person called “sk8tr,”
I think the deck-headline makes sense because this is another iteration of the debate about sites mainly downtown and on the waterfront, but across HRM really—across the country for that matter. The point of the deck is that it’s not just happening in the high-traffic ‘public’ spaces.
Setting this story up as ‘NIMBYs (not in my backyard) vs. developers’ casts quick judgment. That’s not my job.
It also assumes an authority I can’t claim. NIMBY is an emotional response. One can’t prove a group is NIMBY. I asked if their response to the proposal was coming from that impulse and they said ‘no.’ I could’ve kept asking and they would’ve kept saying ‘no.’ And that’d be boring to read. Plus, I trust readers, such as yourself, will make their own decision, whether or not they post a comment to express it.
As for the SPIRIT Place board, yes, they are requesting to (re)develop —a verb—a site. Does that make them ‘developers’ (a noun) in the sense that the word is so often used now? Again, I prefer to leave that to readers to decide for and among themselves. But I avoid using it because, as journalist, the label ‘developers’ is easy and reactionary shorthand. The SPIRIT Place folks believe they’re ‘developing’ this one site for good cause, just as the opponents think they have good reason to oppose it.
And that reason is, first and foremost, as they told me time and again in interviews, the height and volume of the proposed building.
Of course I asked them about materials, design concept, whether they could accept a building of that height and volume if it showed thought, imagination, creativity, including at “ground level” as I called it in the interview. In response they (through an appointed speaker, Liz Cunningham) returned to their one and main objection at this point in time: the height and attendant volume.
Then, to be fair and accurate, I included the explanation from the architect about how they responded to that one and chief concern, the height and volume.
You assume a point was “missed” because this single story didn’t deal with what you see as “quality.” But part of the quality is the height and volume of a building. If a group feels (again, an emotional response) a building is too big, who am I (and how can I) to decide that feeling is valid or not.
I have material on architectural materials and responses from the architect to questions about design at ground/street level, which came in part out of concerns expressed by area residents and I’m planning with the editor to make it the focus of a follow-up story (probably to run online). So, I guess I can count on you as a reader.
I think you make a great point in saying “how the development interacts with the neighborhood at street level, and whether quality design and materials went into it” but I’d be interested in how you back that up. What developments might you have in mind that show good architecture at ground/street level? What ones fail in that regard? You can reach me through the paper by email. Perhaps we should talk for the follow-up story.
All best,
Sean Flinn
Is it possible area residents are more concerned with an increase in property value assesments because of this new structure?
To Jennifer and Marlene,
I guess I wasn’t clear in the way I related the explanation for size (the sentence starting “Ample residential…”).
As it was explained to me, the number of proposed apartments is a response to a need for affordable seniors’ housing on the peninsula; the more apartments there are the lower the rents may be, though they don’t yet have rental amounts/ranges determine yet. That latter point (unavailability of rent amounts and ranges) was in an earlier draft and perhaps I should’ve ensured that stayed in the final draft. But that’s how journalism works: different people read and edit a story and make decisions based on space and focus. And that’s how it should be.
Is the need for seniors’ housing on the peninsula perceived or proven? Does the building need to be the proposed size? Does the size adversely affect light, wind and traffic? The architects say the proposed structure doesn’t adversely affect those conditions and shared models that illustrated that point. As I was told, some opponents don’t believe the models, which is their right, of course, to hold that opinion.
But this is all back-and-forth, he-said/she-said occurrences. I couldn’t possibly report it all in this story, along with the resignations, and reasons why, from the community liaison group.
My point here and in the article is that this debate can take place anywhere in the city, not just the recent and controversial zones.
Furthermore, it’s to trigger questions as much as provide answers around development/design/architecture: who owns or holds the ultimate right to define a neighbourhood’s character? How can it be defined through its architectural fabric, which includes houseowners and public buildings, such as churches, in a way that reflects the whole?
As I told folks on both sides, it’s not my intention or role to resolve this dispute, only to describe it with the above questions in mind. These are questions of culture, or cultural identity, in a way and that precedes administrative and political matters.
I don’t think they can be answered through disputes, case by case. I think they have to be addressed before the disputes arise (say, through education and art). But that’s just me.
All best,
Sean Flinn
Dear Sean,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My mistake about the deck-headline. When I read it this morning, I thought it read… ‘The architecture VERSUS development debate moves out of the downtown core with a proposed Windsor Street seniors residence.’ You can imagine my confusion. Anyway, my bad. I’ll try to wait until after coffee before I post comments next time.
I totally understand that neighborhood character is worth defending. I’m not advocating for tall buildings, just good urban design principles that will make the city I love even better.
Glad to hear that you will continue to report on this story. A thoughtful discussion of these issues is exactly what the city needs. I’ll be reading.
-Craig
The sexual orientation of the proposed seniors residential component is irelevant to the planning decision and cannot be the legal basis for approval or denial of the application.
Any discussion of the sexual orientation of possible tenants can and should be ruled out of order.
This application is to be considered as a planning application for a building, who may or may not live there is irelevant.
Dear Readers:
Thanks Sean for covering this story. There is a lot not being said here that I’d like to add.
I’m all for great architecture, supporting social causes, church groups, modernizing, moving forward and bringing our communities together. Unfortunately, the church, with some help from CBC, has manipulated the debate around this development to be solely about irrelevant social issues. This has only helped divide our community.
The discussion here should be only about the height and sheer size of this development. Walk by the church sometime and just stand there and picture this seven story building – fifteen feet higher than the churches present apex. Then, decide for yourself if you think that this is a good idea.
Readers should know that the design plans submitted for approval HRM are completely different from those depicted in the artists interpretation on their website. The plans submitted show a box-like structure, floor to roof, that is not very pretty.
I’m concerned that if this project goes through, other churches and “non-churches” are going to want to do similar developments. This has to stop here.
I petitioned many of the houses near the church and the majority, by far, don’t support the development. Several of those who didn’t sign admitted that they wouldn’t sign because they feared that they would offend members of the church or their neighbours. I encourage the members of our community to not be bullied here and to make their voices heard.
I hope that council will focus on the real issues here and reject this development rather than focus on unrelated, emotional issues. I find that many of us get too wrapped up in the fact that this is a “poor, struggling church group”. The reality is that churches are no longer the centre of our communities. They haven’t been for a long time. The city shouldn’t be in the business of saving failing churches.
JW
Sean, thank you for your attempts to answer the size/density questions I have had about this project. You acknowledge that no specific figures about rents or actual costs are available which only leaves us all guessing about how “affordable” these units will be. Perhaps we will only find this out after the building is built.
One thing about costs that you fail to mention is that a newly built church (with tax free status) will be part of the cost carried by the model’s financial scheme determined directly by the height and mass of the project. There is mention of the church paying rent but no amount is disclosed and no mention is made of how much of the costs of this project the church will carry. The only figure that has remained constant and uncompromising throughout this debate is the size (7 stories) and the scale (60 units).
Your remarks about how we define characters of neighbourhoods are insightful . You obviously grasp the dynamics, complexity and necessary elasticity of urban living and design. However, this debate between the church and its surrounding neighbourhood has to include HRM policy, zoning and expertise about how neighbourhoods are best designed and regulated for and by residents. Residents in the R-2 area surrounding St. John’s United Church St. live in an area which by HRM design/regulations allows: churches, church halls, 4-unit apt. buildings and homes of 2/3 stories in height . This is what R-2 zoning allows and this is determined by HRM – not St. John’s United Church, not me, and not developers. St. John’s United Church will not compromise on the size of this proposal which severely challenges all city regulations about healthy neighbourhood regulations. I feel that this is a very sad way to pretend to share the neighbourhood St.. JOhn;s has enjoyed for many years.
As I have stated before, neighbours support the purpose of this valuable and worthwhile project. It is the size and scale that we hope HRM can help the community and St. John’s United Church find a solution for.
Several of my lesbian friends find SPIRIT PLACE’s focus to grant living space to LGBT condescending. Presently, one of my gay friends lives in a long term care facility in HRM and she tells me her sexual orientation is not an issue (a lot of the staff who work in her facility are also gay). I am curious to know what is the motive behind SPIRIT PLACE’s public message of acceptance that singles out seniors who are LGBT? I am concerned that these policies of acceptance often lead to the marginalizing LGBT. The view that LGBT need to be looked after by a bigger benevolent power is so patronizing.
Some may decry this as not being true, but as an observer from afar, this is classic NIMBY-ism. A seven storey building is not big. Fifteen feet added in height is insignificant. What we have here are homeowners who do not want change in their neighborhood. That cannot stand. The peninsula requires more density. The seniors population is growing. The peninsula needs to accommodate more folks. Developments like this are a way to do that. One might reasonably argue that it should be twice as tall. The alternative are things like the adjacent development on the corner of North and Windsor, a totally unremarkable, unattractive — but short and cheap — building that hopefully will be replaced sooner rather than later.
Those opposing this need to give their heads a shake.
Well put – the Halifax trend of focusing on height of every idea that comes along is so counter-productive. Calling it NIMBY-ism is hitting the nail on the head – and we hear about it every time a new project is proposed. I heard Fred Connors talking about the same thing for a new proposal on Agricola – isn’t that part of this neighbourhood? Quite rightly, he was commenting on the need for Halifax to get with it and focus on improving the City, not constantly opposing every idea that comes along. Fred has done so much for the area and he acknowledges and supports the need for development that includes some higher buildings to finally get more density back on the peninsula. Let’s be a bit more fiscally responsible, Council, and encourage more height and density on the peninsula where the services can be provided more efficiently and effectively. Put higher buildings where people can walk, ride bikes, take buses and avoid contributing more to the ever worsening traffic.
The key issue with new structures should be the streetscape and the walk-by/drive-by experience, and as Sean pointed out in his comment, the interaction at street level. Do you really walk along a street like this looking up – or do you walk or drive along looking at the bottom few levels? That seems more normal – that’s what I do when riding my bike or walking my dog – and it is the attractiveness of what I am walking by that makes the most impact. I’d look forward to walking by this building – much more so than many of the flats near by or the adjacent apartment building. This building looks very attractive – I confirmed with the City that the drawing on the website is in fact reflective of what has been submitted – not what “JW” below would like you to think is different. Looks like an excellent effort at fitting with the character of the neighbourhood – which by the way, includes a diverse range of buildings. This one appears to have the same set-back, colours etc. that blend. Good job, architects. Be brave, Council. Do the right thing for the peninsula.
This development looks great. Very attractive and I like the ground level. It isn’t that big. It feels sort of “vancouver”.
The resistance against this is nothing but the usual baseless NIMBYism. A retirement home and church — geez, what wouldn’t you people complain about.
Can anybody answer this question: Why don’t we ever ever see architectural pictures of Spirit Place and how it relates or coexists with North Street? Why won’t the architects give us a picture of this? Why is this neighbourhood being ignored in their drawings? If I lived on North St. I would be very bothered by this.
Truth is. The proposed development IS large compared to anything within blocks of this mostly residential community. As a non-church member resident of the area, I feel (emotional response) let down that I and others like me have been an insignificant part of the planning process. If SPIRIT place truly was about community, we would have a voice too.
Spirit Place (like any development) is looking to build in at the corner of willow and Windsor on a site zoned R2 residential. They seek significant changes to virtually every aspect of the permitted uses of the property, including changing the density from the currently permitted 6 units to 65 units, changing the currently permitted height from 35-feet to 7-storeys, and reducing building setbacks along Willow, Windsor, and especially North Street to absurdly short distances. These are radical changes that warrant concern and scrutiny.
Many area residents would love to have Spirit Place at Willow and Windsor and would accept considerable changes to what is currently permitted. We simply want to ensure that Spirit Place include reasonable setbacks that ensure at least basic privacy to its neighbours, especially those along North Street, and a height that will not completely overwhelm the neighbourhood.
Sadly, St. John’s is a small and shrinking congregation. They could not afford to even heat the current church, much less keep it in good repair. It is St. John’s who insist that the only way they can AFFORD to develop is if they can build a 7-storey 65-unit building, and that compromise is impossible. (Note: The Church has chosen not to share the financials regarding the development. While this is the right of any developer, it does little to build trust with St. John’s neighbours.)
Taking St. John’s at their word, it is reasonable to be concerned St. they don’t have the resources to pull Spirit Place off. If the Church has to throw in the towel, the reality is they will sell the right to build a 7-storey 65-unit apartment building to a private developer. Does anyone want HRM to start permitting big apartment buildings in R2 residential neighbourhoods?
Hopefully St. John’s can afford a more reasonable development.
Surely resorting to name calling isn’t in harmony with the philosophy of ‘Spirit Place’. This is obviously a very contentious issue and there are many viewpoints, however all opinion’s are simply that and as such our constitutional right to voice.
I have never considered myself to be a ‘nimby’-type, although as a resident of the area I do not look forward to the increased traffic on our already busy streets, the parking issues related to increased population density and equally importantly the increasing wail of ambulance sirens day and night that the proposed development would certainly create. If that makes me a ‘Nimby’…so be it. I would rather think of myself as a concerned neighbour and area resident.
Although the proposed structure may technically only be 11-15 feet taller than the top of the current building’s spire, it would be more visually clear to reference the size of the proposed plan in terms of increased square footage. The proposed plan has very minimal setbacks from the sidewalks and will be quite imposing–very different from the current building with its decreasing volume to height. Adjacent gardens will lose their sun and plants will die…just another viewpoint.
The truth is, PixieChick, you go east exactly one block and you find Westwood’s Gladstone development, which absolutely dwarfs this modest little building.
All I am reading from those opposed to it are red-herring arguments, which really cannot be given credence. Zoning maps are only ever intended as a guide, and a church building is hardly an acceptable use in a R-2 zone either, one might argue. And since there is no public money going into this, nobody should be questioning the financial case for the building — frankly, it is none of anyone’s business except that of the owners.
Why don’t they just sell the land and troop off to St Matthew’s which is facing the same financial problems and is also trying to develop the land next to the Lt Governor.
The United Church needs to face reality, too many buildings and too few customers.
If ‘social justice’ was really important to the congregation they would give the land to Habitat for Humanity or a similar organisation and give low income people the opportunity to live in better circumstances, and then wander down to St Matthews on Barrington and help preserve the building, plenty of empty pews downtown. The neighbours would be happy and the act of Christian charity would not go un-noticed.
People are complaining about 7 story buildings now?? lol. Wow.
If you want to live in a city you are going to deal with development.
If you want to live in a pasture, the other 99% of the province should suffice.
I really like your suggestion, Joe Blow, about St. John’s donating their property to a non denominational charity like Habitat for Humanity. That would be very worthy social justice action, I feel. With regards to Bo Gus’s comments about the Gladstone Ridge development project which is near by I’d like to make some comments. As you know, this property has a very large condo apt. buildings that lie near newly built residential homes. I have no idea what this land was originally zoned before the development occurred. However, I think you will agree that the Gladstone Ridge property size is much much bigger than the St. John’s property. The high rise buildings there have enormous set back (looks to me like hundreds of feet) from the newly built residential homes. The Berkely Building on Gladstone St. (I believe is 5/6 stories) also has a large green buffer set back space. The proposed Spirit Place will not possess any such set back because unfortunately the property it sits on is very small. The Spirit Place 60 unit proposal when finished may lie at most about 60ft (including the street) from some homes but as close as 4ft. to other homes. HRM rules and regulations do not allow this. However, as you say. these are just guides but guides are meant to do that – guide not open the door to obvious disregard.
As for public money going into this proposal, I am quite certain that the church’s tax free status will continue when it builds its new sanctuary building. Public money (our taxes) pay for roads, sidewalks, snow removal, street cleaning, street lights etc… has supported this church for many years and will continue to do so. As a tax payer in HRM who upholds zoning laws and willingly subsidizes the church, I think I deserve to know a little more about the finances of this proposal.
LOL… imagine the opposition in the neighborhood to low-income housing on the site! One can only imagine the squeals of protest over that. Plus — hate to say it — most low-income housing requires density, which means height.
To all those crying out NIMBYism – please stop and think for a moment, as your name-calling is akin to the knee-jerk reaction of crying “Not in my neighborhood!” in the first place. There are many of us who have real concerns, not red-herring arguments, but actual quality of life issues such as loss of privacy, sunlight and property values. None of us are against affordable seniors housing by any means. I am not anti-development (yes, even in my own neighborhood), I am rather all for regulated, sensible, neighborhood-friendly development proposals. Furthermore, to what a poster pointed out earlier, I have never seen in any representation or rendering in the past year and half ANY depiction of what the North Street side of the building will look like. Since the North Street properties back directly onto the church’s north face, I firmly believe it should be taken into account what I, a long time property owner will have to live with should this proposal go through as is. Lastly, if anyone is interested in seeing the reality of what I am speaking about feel free to contact me at concernedneighbor56(at)gmail.com and I would be more than happy to take you on a short tour.
Since when has this proposal been around for “a year and a half”? It was only released, what, a month or two ago?
This proposal looks pretty “neighbourhood friendly” to me. The house immediately next to the properly will be next to the chapel, which only looks to be 2 storeys in height. I like the townhouse look of the lower levels and I imagine there’s no rendering of the North Street facade for two reasons:
1) it’s expensive to commission these paintings
2) nobody’s asked them
Dear Calvin,
First you are obviously totally unfamiliar with how development proposals work, if you think that they are only in the pipeline for a month or two before they go before Council. You are so woefully uniformed.
Number 2, I specifically asked why North Street properties were not depicted well over a year ago, and was given a lame answer about computer memory capacity! And last but not least, there is more than one property on North Street that backs onto the church property. Imagine if you will having a cruise ship parked in your backyard, that is what my nieghbors are facing.
I would suggest that you get your facts straight before posting something on the internet.