I admit I am slightly too young to be definitive, but I remember the Club Flamingo's first location was the Cove Theatre, most recently Palooka's gym on Gottingen, around 1984. Anyone?
We want to stop sprawl in HRM, and this is how we are going to do that. Medium density apartments, condos, etc. Lets hope the proposed development is of high quality, and held to that promise.
1 - the "pro-dev at any cost" people attack Tim, readers of the Coast, and citizens who oppose them as small minded and anti-future but most of the commenters here have just attacked the people, not the facts, of the posts on this page, and USUALLY they attack from the pseudo-safety of anonymous posting. I appeal to your better natures to actually rejoin this debate under your real name and address facts rather than just attack people you disagree with.
2 - It is poison to try and push all anti-convention centre people into the STV camp. Clearly there is a wide range of people in the middle who might support a convention centre if they had all the facts, but also, and this is REALLY important, they may NOT support the convention centre because of the facts. CWG and CC2 boosters need to rise above and try and bring some respect to the fact that this is a debate, we are a democracy, we can disagree. That said, we need the facts, not TCL massaged nonsense, and certainly not papers showing demand, but no actual business plan. Please show me how this thing will operate and what the real cost is, so I can modify my NO to a MAYBE or even a YES.
3 - Personally, I do not support this proposal, this secret, P3, convention centre socialism that is going to see the downtown hotel and office space market completely warped by $160 million in taxpayers money going into this multi-use facility. Twisted Towers, the Armour Development, the Roy, the Sam's property? All will face even harder times finding tenants and financing if Ramia get's his 17 story towers, as there simply is NOT ENOUGH DEMAND to fill that kind of supply. As Peter Kelly said, there is 1 million SF of office space APPROVED TO BE BUILT right now in downtown. No private developer is building because there is not sufficient demand to warrant it. We have 10% commercial vacancy downtown, 1 mil approved and not being built. Do some math.
Our political leaders should never ever approve anything like this project without full public disclosure prior to approval and debate. Shame on the NDP for approving this without full, free, fair and informed debate.
Bo Gus, address a clear fact - Ottawa will own their CC for $170 million, Halifax will lease a space for 25 years at $8 millionish a year but still pay $159 million to build it. How can anyone think that is a good use of taxpayers money?
Everyone against THIS proposal is not against a new CC. Just this crappy, old boy, backwards, backwoods, secret handshake proposal.
Common. North Common, South Common, all together is the Common. Not commons. Like how a piece of pie, and another piece of pie, does not make two pieces of pies. It would be two pieces of pie.
The blocks that the Convention Centre proposal would occupy are in Upper Central Downtown (precinct 6) of the Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy, the result of HRMbyD for downtown.
You can see on the Map 4, page 83, that the maximum pre bonus height for each block is 22 meters. So the most you would see would be 7 3 meter storeys, though probably more like six storeys. Hotels and residential usually need less space per floor than offices.
Policy 18 of the SMPS says "HRM may consider a variety of public benefits when assessing site plan approval applications seeking a height bonus in exchange for the provision of public
benefit"
So if the property had a lot of bonusable items - some low income housing, for example, it could gain up to 28 meters more in "bonus height". This is outlined on the bonus Map 5 on page 84. So if these were 3 meter floors you'ed be looking at 13 storeys max, but really a modern building is going to be more like 4 meters, so you are looking at 10 storeys.
What Tim is talking about is Policy 89. It reads in part "Notwithstanding the foregoing policies, where a proposed amendment addresses unforseen circumstances, or is deemed by Council to confer significant economic, or social, or cultural benefits to HRM beyond the bonus zoning provisions of this Plan, such amendments shall be considered by Council at any time regardless of
the schedule for reviews."
Policy 89 overrides the 40 meter height restriction and is designed to be the extra big bonus for someone doing something like the Convention Centre. With out it, 10 stories. With it, 17 stories. That is a hell of a subsidy. Then you pile in $100 million dollars for the Convention Centre. Even more of a massive subsidy.
It frustrates the hell out of me when pro-WTCC2 supporters say "only a couple dozen people support the "Save the View" people". That may be true in terms of facebook support, but thousands of people participated in HRMbyD, the consensus policy document on how to move downtown forward.
I thought then and think now Policy 89 is a horrible mistake, but if we are going to use it to override all the good work on height and design in HRMbyD can we at least call a spade a shovel, and admit that 7 extra stories of height is in fact a subsidy?
Recent Comments
The Mayor, as chair and presiding officer of Council, should stop the cross talk. That is clearly his job to do.
1 - the "pro-dev at any cost" people attack Tim, readers of the Coast, and citizens who oppose them as small minded and anti-future but most of the commenters here have just attacked the people, not the facts, of the posts on this page, and USUALLY they attack from the pseudo-safety of anonymous posting. I appeal to your better natures to actually rejoin this debate under your real name and address facts rather than just attack people you disagree with.
2 - It is poison to try and push all anti-convention centre people into the STV camp. Clearly there is a wide range of people in the middle who might support a convention centre if they had all the facts, but also, and this is REALLY important, they may NOT support the convention centre because of the facts. CWG and CC2 boosters need to rise above and try and bring some respect to the fact that this is a debate, we are a democracy, we can disagree. That said, we need the facts, not TCL massaged nonsense, and certainly not papers showing demand, but no actual business plan. Please show me how this thing will operate and what the real cost is, so I can modify my NO to a MAYBE or even a YES.
3 - Personally, I do not support this proposal, this secret, P3, convention centre socialism that is going to see the downtown hotel and office space market completely warped by $160 million in taxpayers money going into this multi-use facility. Twisted Towers, the Armour Development, the Roy, the Sam's property? All will face even harder times finding tenants and financing if Ramia get's his 17 story towers, as there simply is NOT ENOUGH DEMAND to fill that kind of supply. As Peter Kelly said, there is 1 million SF of office space APPROVED TO BE BUILT right now in downtown. No private developer is building because there is not sufficient demand to warrant it. We have 10% commercial vacancy downtown, 1 mil approved and not being built. Do some math.
Our political leaders should never ever approve anything like this project without full public disclosure prior to approval and debate. Shame on the NDP for approving this without full, free, fair and informed debate.
Everyone against THIS proposal is not against a new CC. Just this crappy, old boy, backwards, backwoods, secret handshake proposal.
You can see on the Map 4, page 83, that the maximum pre bonus height for each block is 22 meters. So the most you would see would be 7 3 meter storeys, though probably more like six storeys. Hotels and residential usually need less space per floor than offices.
Policy 18 of the SMPS says "HRM may consider a variety of public benefits when assessing site plan approval applications seeking a height bonus in exchange for the provision of public
benefit"
So if the property had a lot of bonusable items - some low income housing, for example, it could gain up to 28 meters more in "bonus height". This is outlined on the bonus Map 5 on page 84. So if these were 3 meter floors you'ed be looking at 13 storeys max, but really a modern building is going to be more like 4 meters, so you are looking at 10 storeys.
What Tim is talking about is Policy 89. It reads in part "Notwithstanding the foregoing policies, where a proposed amendment addresses unforseen circumstances, or is deemed by Council to confer significant economic, or social, or cultural benefits to HRM beyond the bonus zoning provisions of this Plan, such amendments shall be considered by Council at any time regardless of
the schedule for reviews."
Policy 89 overrides the 40 meter height restriction and is designed to be the extra big bonus for someone doing something like the Convention Centre. With out it, 10 stories. With it, 17 stories. That is a hell of a subsidy. Then you pile in $100 million dollars for the Convention Centre. Even more of a massive subsidy.
It frustrates the hell out of me when pro-WTCC2 supporters say "only a couple dozen people support the "Save the View" people". That may be true in terms of facebook support, but thousands of people participated in HRMbyD, the consensus policy document on how to move downtown forward.
I thought then and think now Policy 89 is a horrible mistake, but if we are going to use it to override all the good work on height and design in HRMbyD can we at least call a spade a shovel, and admit that 7 extra stories of height is in fact a subsidy?
You can read the SMPS here: http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/docu…