Hali kind of guy 
Member since Aug 4, 2011



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Why the city should spend over $5 million to buy a gravel parking lot

The buy back clause would be registered on the deed like a restrictive covenant or lien - so, while I usually disagree with Tim in most cases - I agree here. Buy the property back and put it back out for tender.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Hali kind of guy on 05/09/2013 at 11:53 AM

Re: “Halifax's building boom: anything goes

What I find most interesting about this article is that Tim has not commented on the various postings. The over whelming opinion here is in total opposition to your thoughts Tim. Perhaps the tide has shifted?

The YMCA proposal shows the flaw in HbD. To not even have the post bonus height maps be the same as existing, lawfully approved development, frankly is wrong. If martime centre was destroyed by fire - to not be able to put the building back up at the same height is wrong.

One of the things Tim's logic fails to take into account is existing context. The YMCA proposal is a great example of this. Look at the development around it - now look at the proposal. There is no way that building wouldn't fit into that context. But yet, the height for that site is lower. It shouldn't have been.

Plus, there has been no direct relationship ever established that with more development and tall buildings in the city; the impact on the citadell would be negative and I'd challenge anyway to prove it since the attendance numbers have been going up for years.

The new regional centre plan is a good process and will help clear up a lot of inconsistencies in planning policy and regulation. Just don't give into those who fear progress, because like it or not, progress is at our door, has knocked and is walking in.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Hali kind of guy on 03/06/2012 at 12:08 PM

Re: “Bayers Road and bust

If the road is going to be widened, then the recommendation in the report that the extra lane be used for public transit (queue jumping) is what the lane should be for. This area is a huge bottle neck for many transit routes getting into and out of the core from the suburbs and if a queue jumping lane were there, I'm sure it would help.

But we really need to start investing in alternate forms of transit. Regional rail has been on the drawing board for how long? Would it work? Well - maybe, if we can get the right trains, level of service and a solid way to get people from the train station. If you do regional rail, Mumford and the train station should be the main connection points - with routes out from each point to the downtown core, universities and hospitals. But you need to make sure that if a train arrives, there is a bus waiting for them.

The other mode of transit that has been talked about is fast ferries and there has been good work on this. It will take about 5 years for this to go, because you'd have to build the vessels and it takes about ayear or so per ship, but the test they did worked well. The harbour speed limits can be changed, simply by request to federal government. We need to get out of this old habit of just building roads - that doesn't fix anything.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Hali kind of guy on 08/04/2011 at 2:44 PM

Re: “Death of a vision

The other thing you seem to forget about all this Tim is that development rules are fluid. They change and have a life - designs and standards change and so to must the rules.

The rules as they are now, may not be the same in 10 years because how we build things could change tomorrow. So the rules should change to adapt to that.

It's not 'a loophole' to apply to amend the plan. That's the way the system works - anyone can ask. I agree with Fenwick; you see conspiracy everywhere. But I wouldn't hold my breath to see the coast get behind anything - then they'd be out of business. Whatever would they write about?

Posted by Hali kind of guy on 08/04/2011 at 2:25 PM

Re: “Death of a vision

Actually Tim - HRM by design is that downtown Land Use bylaw and the design manual is part of that. So you are wrong - all applications must go through that process. What you conveniently forget to mention in your article is that under the HRM act (and before that the Municipal Government Act) - anyone can make an application to amend the Land use bylaw or policies that council has approved. Council does not have to approve it - but anyone could. You could right now, if you paid the $ and had the correct information.

HbD was flawed in that it's height requirements don't even recognize the existing development. There was not total agreement, it was an attempt to quiet all the heritage people and get development going but in the end it actually claws back development rights on parcels. Many of the condo towers around the YMCA site, with the post bonus height map, actually would loose height and they were built before HbD took effect - how is that fair?

Also your comment on grandfathering is flawed. The legislation was going through the approval process, it had not been given final reading and signed into law. Council was given a recommendation on those applications and the conference centre. Whether you or I like it or not, they chose to grandfather 4 applications and the conference centre. That's the power council has. Once they did that an approved the whole thing - it didn't tear at the fabric of HbD, it became part of HbD.

Posted by Hali kind of guy on 08/04/2011 at 1:37 PM

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Real Time Web Analytics

© 2019 Coast Publishing Ltd.