[Dartmouth] Bridge Tower (30 Pelzant) | ? m | 11 FL | U/C

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Just an idle thought.

And a good one at that.

[New]

I can see my comment stirred up the hornets nest so to say.

I have trouble understanding those that seem adamantly entrenched on the side of the city and see decapitating this building and damn the consequences as the best solution.

I have a couple other thoughts on this.

First, as I did live very close to this development there was a long stretch of time where this development seemingly ground to a halt. I could see the obvious two extra floors under construction. Those two floors remained only a concreate shell for noticeably long period of time. I even commented on this earlier in this thread. I suspected at the time it had to do with those extra floors and negotiations with the city. Eventually after a few months the job started to finally progress again.

Correct me if I am wrong but was this development not originally approved under stricter development regulations than the other newer developments along that same stretch? I assumed the developer was looking for an adjustment of sorts considering the new approved heights of developments in the immediate vicinity. Some potentially reaching 40 stories.

I also have quietly followed development in this city for well over 20 years and have been reading this forum for a good part of those 20 years. This forum years ago seemed to have more development professionals actively commenting so I just lurked so to say. I was also the only pro-development contributor on the "Halifax locals" forum and regularly butted heads with Waye Mason on that site over development in Halifax. I recall people like Waye and others individuals and groups claiming the original Twisted Sister proposal was so large it would suck any further development potential happening downtown for years. It was absolute nonsense but at the time The Coast helped pushed this anti-development nonsense and the public seemed to eat it up.

I watched the unmitigated disaster that was city council for years, the days of the dynamic anti development duo of Mason/Watts who wanted to vote down or chop off any developments over 4 stories. People like Epstein who wanted to freeze the city in time. Watching all this, for decades, gives me zero faith in Halifax city council. I see the same attitudes in current council members. The same superior know better dismissive views. Somehow being elected makes them believe they are experts in all things.

So I strongly suspect that the developer did not just decide without any engineering approvals to add a couple floors and no one would notice. That is incredibly hard to believe considering.


This is very much a typical Nova Scotia controversy.

I think it is great how much the city has finally evolved in the last decade in spite of Halifax city council. The city is finally growing and progressing. The community is more diverse, and better for it.

For myself personally it was time to retire and for several reasons including exorbitant taxes and the still underlying anti-progress attitudes i chose to leave. NS has always seemed to be two decades behind and very insular in attitudes. That really has been a major factor in holding this part of Canada back.

I hope a this issue results in a more reasonable solution than tearing down already constructed housing units in a city facing a housing crisis.

Sorry for the long winded response.

[OldDartmouthMark]

^
Good post. One thing I would like to point out is that I don’t see many pro-HRM posts. I can’t speak for others, but I am pro-process. I don’t really have a horse in the race regarding who is right or who is wrong, but I do believe that processes are in place for good reasons, mostly safety of innocent civilians, but obviously other good reasons as well, like city planning, infrastructure requirements, etc. As someone mentions, there apparently will be a legal process that will hopefully bring the details to light.

As for the rest of it, I don’t really care how I am viewed by others here, especially those who may look down on me for whatever they think I am about, but I will be true to what I believe to be right. As far as a choice to move away from here, I am happy when people follow their dreams, but don’t appreciate when people portray Halifax as being a backwater in order to justify it. If one truly has that belief, then my impression is that they really haven’t learned to appreciate it for what it is, and instead choose to focus on what it isn’t. Either way, it’s all good. I’m just glad that we can have these conversations without wanting to rip each other’s heads off. That’s become somewhat of a rarity these days.

[ngunda]

There seems to be an interestingly high amount of overlap between those who perceive a tendency of the City (and council in particular) to meddle where they should not, and those who think the City should make a special exemption in this case and allow the extra floors to remain under some set of conditions. If you truly believe the City should stick to its knitting, how do you square that with suggesting they should decide on a case by case basis the specific response to a developer violating a DA? If they are going to deal with such matters impartially and not get sucked into making decisions they really shouldn’t be involved in (and which could create more legal trouble if they appear to favour one developer over another), ordering developers to stick to their DAs seems to be the most logical course.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by ngunda

There seems to be an interestingly high amount of overlap between those who perceive a tendency of the City (and council in particular) to meddle where they should not, and those who think the City should make a special exemption in this case and allow the extra floors to remain under some set of conditions. If you truly believe the City should stick to its knitting, how do you square that with suggesting they should decide on a case by case basis the specific response to a developer violating a DA? If they are going to deal with such matters impartially and not get sucked into making decisions they really shouldn’t be involved in (and which could create more legal trouble if they appear to favour one developer over another), ordering developers to stick to their DAs seems to be the most logical course.

Perhaps the lesson learned is the the city inspection department keep a closer watch on the developments that they are responsible for.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ngunda

There seems to be an interestingly high amount of overlap between those who perceive a tendency of the City (and council in particular) to meddle where they should not, and those who think the City should make a special exemption in this case and allow the extra floors to remain under some set of conditions. If you truly believe the City should stick to its knitting, how do you square that with suggesting they should decide on a case by case basis the specific response to a developer violating a DA? If they are going to deal with such matters impartially and not get sucked into making decisions they really shouldn’t be involved in (and which could create more legal trouble if they appear to favour one developer over another), ordering developers to stick to their DAs seems to be the most logical course.

I drive past this location fairly often. I only vaguely knew about this development from what I read here and had no reliable memory of what the approved height was since construction on this was sporadic and slow. You might recall a post I made a while ago about this perhaps being another project by the Five Moes or being run on a cash basis because of that slowness.

However, when I drove past and was sitting at the Sam Austin bicycle traffic lights at the bottom of Boland Rd I would sometimes use that time to count the number of floors. The slow pace of construction made it an interesting mind game to see when another floor finally got added. One time late last year I remember thinking I must have miscounted because the number was higher than I thought it would be. Not long after that I saw the news break about the agreement being breached.

Now, if I was able to count the floors, where were the HRM inspectors? I get that they claim to be run off their feet and overburdened, but this is on a busy corner and I suspect some of them must drive past it regularly, especially with all the other new buildings going up nearby. Why were they asleep at the wheel? Is it one inspector being negligent? Or is it a red flag that the entire department needs a shakeup? It strikes me that this is one of those instances where both sides can be liable, especially if evidence comes forward that there was communication between HRM and the developer that things would be approved at some future point.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I drive past this location fairly often. I only vaguely knew about this development from what I read here and had no reliable memory of what the approved height was since construction on this was sporadic and slow. You might recall a post I made a while ago about this perhaps being another project by the Five Moes or being run on a cash basis because of that slowness.

However, when I drove past and was sitting at the Sam Austin bicycle traffic lights at the bottom of Boland Rd I would sometimes use that time to count the number of floors. The slow pace of construction made it an interesting mind game to see when another floor finally got added. One time late last year I remember thinking I must have miscounted because the number was higher than I thought it would be. Not long after that I saw the news break about the agreement being breached.

Now, if I was able to count the floors, where were the HRM inspectors? I get that they claim to be run off their feet and overburdened, but this is on a busy corner and I suspect some of them must drive past it regularly, especially with all the other new buildings going up nearby. Why were they asleep at the wheel? Is it one inspector being negligent? Or is it a red flag that the entire department needs a shakeup? It strikes me that this is one of those instances where both sides can be liable, especially if evidence comes forward that there was communication between HRM and the developer that things would be approved at some future point.

Sam Austin still living rent free in your head lol. Perish the thought of any infrastructure being added to make cyclists safer!

Regarding the topic, indeed, I agree both sides probably share some blame here. I think a fair solution would be to keep the floors but to fine the developer heavily. Especially in the context of the nearby developments it makes little sense to force this building shorter on principle.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Regarding the topic, indeed, I agree both sides probably share some blame here.

There are no published facts on which to base that conclusion. This is all speculation.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Sam Austin still living rent free in your head lol.

Until he is evicted from Council it will be an ongoing effort to minimize the damage he has done.

[ngunda]

Originally Posted by Empire

Perhaps the lesson learned is the the city inspection department keep a closer watch on the developments that they are responsible for.

Given how rare these occurrences are, it doesn’t seem like an efficient use of resources to add the headcount that would require. There’s a reason for the standard of conducting inspections at certain construction milestones.

[Dmajackson]

Signage on site now calls this BRIDGE TOWER.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ngunda

Given how rare these occurrences are, it doesn’t seem like an efficient use of resources to add the headcount that would require. There’s a reason for the standard of conducting inspections at certain construction milestones.

But doesn't this mean either the 2 floors were never inspected or the inspector wasn't in sync with HRM planning? Neither case seems good.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Signage on site now calls this BRIDGE TOWER.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

Hmmm… tower? Hmmm…

[Keith P.]

I can see a credible scenario where, once HRM Council eagerly accepted JT's $70 million sack of federal HAF gold in exchange for relaxed building capacity limits, a discussion between the developer and planning staff ensured where questions relating to adding a floor or two to the top of this building were answered affirmatively and led to the result we now have. I have to think something like that happened because not even the most fly-by-night developer would do that on their own. Even HRM Planning can count beyond the number 11.