Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode