HRM Planning Should Be Ashamed

[Drybrain]

I was walking by the under-construction building I mentioned a few posts earlier today, and took a few pictures.

Seems to be not dramatically different in scale from the maligned Jubilee building, but the use of clapboard (or something approximating it; I didn't get close enough to be sure) makes a big difference. There are stone blocks around the foundation, and there's another building, part of the same small development, around the corner, with a more interesting look: wood siding, and a front facade mostly comprising glass bricks.

Seems to be evidence that you don't have to build what looks like an airport hangar to be code-compliant and profitable.

[Empire]

The rush to infill the peninsula, in part, is due to the poor planning for years that restricted the height of buildings on proper opportunity sites. As a result, there is a shortfall of hundreds of units on the peninsula. The allowance of four storey buildings beside quality craftsman homes has no opportunity for a positive outcome. HRM has never really invested it aesthetics. As long as basic planning requirements are met, then there is no reason for concern. Now is the time to incentivise quality design. A framework of recommended materials and design options based on area should be developed. My guess is that in this development climate there would be developers willing to enhance their designs if required as the demand is high. The midrise boom needs a bit of a design check as well to limit the repetitive featureless box style. (black-white-brown)

Also, to avoide blank walls the developer should be required to set the building back from the property line to allow for windows per the fire code.

[Nouvellecosse]

For me, the main problem with the Jubilee development is that there's a sort of uncanny valley effect where it's in between style philosophies. On one end you have the design philosophy of the neighbouring buildings - mostly houses - which have more exterior detail including verandas with railings, exterior stairs leading up to prominent entrances, varied window sizes, window/door trim and molding etc. Then on the other hand you have modernist minimalism which requires a very clean, sleek exterior and often features striking shapes, angles and materials. This building does neither, and as a result, it looks like it basically doesn't have a design. It's just design-less, utilitarian structure. Which is a problem of not giving enough (or perhaps any) fucks.

They could have gone in either direction - traditional or modern - and it could have turned out fine or even great. There's no reason structures need to have the same style as those around them as sometimes contrast between totally different styles can look amazing. But not if you just don't bother with a design. And frankly, I'm not sure it's something you can fix with legislation, and if you tried, you could easily end up stifling design innovation while ending up with equally ugly buildings. Buildings where the developer basically just checks the requirement boxes without putting any effort into the actual design. Uses an approved material? Check! has a couple of traditional features tacked on? Check! You get that sort of things when a developer doesn't care about design.

The other thing is that it just doesn't look like a nice place to live. There's nothing cosy, warm, or gracious about it. For instance, there should have been some type of balconies. While balconies usually make large highrise buildings look worse because the exterior is too cluttered, on smaller buildings they're helpful to keep them from looking too plain. Stuff like the ones common in Quebec for instance. That allows for signs of exterior life such chairs, and plants while mirroring the external porches on the surrounding houses.

[ngunda]

Agreed. Maybe design regulation would have prevented this particular monstrosity from being built, but it could easily lead to worse outcomes in general.

I assume in this case the developer didn’t include balconies because he was attempting to maximize the square footage of the building. But does that mean balconies or porches should be required?

I had a look at HRM’s survey on missing middle housing and quickly got frustrated and closed it without submitting because it was so focused on minutiae. My cynical assumption is they’ll impose a few basic design requirements based on the public’s feedback, which I’m sure will be implemented so clumsily and/or lazily by developers like this one that the results won’t be any better, and which will potentially reduce opportunities for good designs from developers who actually want to build attractive buildings but whose ideas might not fit within the new boxes. I guess I should go back and give that feedback. It’s just frustrating that they seem entirely on the wrong track from the start. Really, they should be able to figure this out without consulting the public. The city seems to have veered into over-engagement in recent years.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ngunda

Really, they should be able to figure this out without consulting the public. The city seems to have veered into over-engagement in recent years.

Indeed. HRM wastes a lot of time and money online and otherwise trying to survey people on the most minuscule and trivial issues. I presume it checks some box on a bureaucrat's goals and objectives form for their annual review and salary bump. It is ridiculously overdone, yet they still continually screw up on things like this.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I was walking by the under-construction building I mentioned a few posts earlier today, and took a few pictures.

This one is interesting. I'm curious to see how it turns out. It doesn't look quite like a building that's trying to pass as historic, but it has nice historic materials like stone and wood shingles. I am sceptical that wood shingles and paint break the bank on apartment buildings where units will rent for $2-3k+.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not a matter of regulating taste. HRM Planning used to review designs and not automatically approve anything that meets just functional/dimensional requirements. There once were subjective statements of things like finishes and materials and compatibility with the neighborhood that had to be satisfied. Those are now all out the window apparently.

I would LOVE to see your reaction when the planners told you that the design of your proposed house was not up to their subjective opinions of compatability with the neighbourhood.

[someone123]

Somebody posted this video of a drive down Jubilee:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1013627397788662

Looks like there are actually two of these. The one in the article, and another similar one that doesn't yet have siding. The video shows how nice Jubilee is on the whole. Imagine how great it would be if these new apartments were 4 storey versions of those classic building styles.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I would LOVE to see your reaction when the planners told you that the design of your proposed house was not up to their subjective opinions of compatability with the neighbourhood.

That used to be planning’s job. Now it seems their main interest is collecting fees.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Somebody posted this video of a drive down Jubilee:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1013627397788662

Looks like there are actually two of these. The one in the article, and another similar one that doesn't yet have siding. The video shows how nice Jubilee is on the whole. Imagine how great it would be if these new apartments were 4 storey versions of those classic building styles.

Probably in times when we weren't in reactionary panic mode due to a housing crisis being artificially made critical through poor political decisions, more thoughtful planning could have been done.

The Houston government seems to be more about 'get it done' rather than 'ruminate over it for a couple of decades and maybe still not arrive at a decision' (like Halifax City), but that can have negatives as well. While it definitely adds density quickly, well, we've already discussed the negative impacts. Unfortunately now we're stuck with them for several decades.

[kzt79]

LOL wow I agree that's pretty brutal (Jubilee bldg in the first post).

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Probably in times when we weren't in reactionary panic mode due to a housing crisis being artificially made critical through poor political decisions, more thoughtful planning could have been done.

The Houston government seems to be more about 'get it done' rather than 'ruminate over it for a couple of decades and maybe still not arrive at a decision' (like Halifax City), but that can have negatives as well. While it definitely adds density quickly, well, we've already discussed the negative impacts. Unfortunately now we're stuck with them for several decades.

The housing crisis is self-imposed, it isn't due to planning/government bureaucracy. In the last decade alone HRM has made tremendous strides in development approval since the Centre Plan was introduced. The province opened the floodgates to mass immigration at the behest of the citizens and our infrastructure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

The housing crisis is self-imposed, it isn't due to planning/government bureaucracy. In the last decade alone HRM has made tremendous strides in development approval since the Centre Plan was introduced. The province opened the floodgates to mass immigration at the behest of the citizens and our infrastructure.

It most certainly is due to govt, mostly at the federal level and cascading down from there. HRM is complicit by taking funding (call it a bribe if you want) from JT and the feds to dismantle the existing development rules and allowing things to be built that would never have been allowed previously. If anything proposed gets approved, why have an approval process at all?

[Empire]

It has been said that you can't regulate good taste or good design. I think you can, and in my opinion we need to try. HRM may want to look at the Historic District Commission (HDC) of Newport Rhode Island and devise a similar plan for Halifax.

It is not good enough to just add housing stock without some accountability to the surrounding neighbourhood and city at large.

Quote from the Newport (HDC)

"Preservation Incentives and Costs
While the guidelines may sound restrictive, Newport provides certain financial incentives to help offset the higher costs associated with maintaining and restoring historic homes. Tax credits and grants are sometimes available for preservation projects that comply with local, state, and federal guidelines. Understanding and applying for these incentives can ease the financial burden of owning a historic property while also ensuring you meet regulations."


A Homeowner’s Guide to Newport’s Historic District Regulations

https://hoganblog.com/2024/12/23/a-homeowners-guide-to-newports-historic-district-regulations/

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Empire

It has been said that you can't regulate good taste or good design. I think you can, and in my opinion we need to try. HRM may want to look at the Historic District Commission (HDC) of Newport Rhode Island and devise a similar plan for Halifax... https://hoganblog.com/2024/12/23/a-homeowners-guide-to-newports-historic-district-regulations/

HRM has similar mechanisms for individually registered heritage properties as well as for designated heritage districts, including financial incentives. Individually registered properties have restrictions on the types of changes you can make to the exterior of your property and the types of materials allowed to be used. Heritage districts include restrictions on form and expression of new buildings as well as changes to existing, whether registered or not.

Is your position that the Jubilee area where these were built should be a heritage district?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

HRM has similar mechanisms for individually registered heritage properties as well as for designated heritage districts, including financial incentives. Individually registered properties have restrictions on the types of changes you can make to the exterior of your property and the types of materials allowed to be used. Heritage districts include restrictions on form and expression of new buildings as well as changes to existing, whether registered or not.

Is your position that the Jubilee area where these were built should be a heritage district?

Perhaps if this area of Jubilee was a heritage district this whole situation could have been avoided.

[Drybrain]

The Housing Accelerator Fund changes included several new proposed heritage districts, one of which is the three-block stretch of Jubilee between Robie and Vernon. But I’m not sure what the timeline is on these actually being implemented in law is (and this new building is quite a bit west of Vernon anyway).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

The housing crisis is self-imposed, it isn't due to planning/government bureaucracy. In the last decade alone HRM has made tremendous strides in development approval since the Centre Plan was introduced. The province opened the floodgates to mass immigration at the behest of the citizens and our infrastructure.

Not self-imposed at all. There have been many factors involved, including real estate prices in other parts of the country rising rapidly due mostly to foreign “investment” and lack of ambition from the feds to do anything about it (lots to it but won’t get into it), Covid created a perfect storm of people wanting to get away from the larger cities, ability to WFH, and relatively low real estate prices in quaint NS. The housing crisis was born in NS.

Then the feds opening the immigration floodgates for TFWs and anybody else who desired to live in Canada, causing huge population increases everywhere in the country, and exacerbating the housing crisis everywhere, including NS. The nail in the coffin if you will.

This caused a number of knee-jerk reactions from all levels of government, with Halifax getting some planning intervention from the province, one of the results being the subject of this discussion.

Not sure how we are supposed to blame ourselves for this, but if that works for you, fill your boots.

[Offshore1]

Precisely. Well said.

[someone123]

It is a little frustrating how NS/HRM could have gotten ahead of the curve more but didn't. Often the phenomena that afflict NS come many years or decades after other places. It is true of renter stability issues, development, the assessment cap, and on and on. It was really obvious that affordability was getting worse nationally and it would work its way around the country. It was slowly deteriorating even ahead of the latest boom.

While HRM's development regime has improved it could have been a lot better and for years HRM made suburban greenfield development very difficult while also implementing pretty poor housing policy for the residential areas. I think they were saved a lot by comparatively slow growth, low housing prices, and the fact that Halifax is an older city with more infill capacity in the sorts of older mixed-use and industrial areas NIMBYs can tolerate. To be honest, I wouldn't give HRM zero credit, but a lot of the good urban stuff in Halifax is not because of them but in spite of them, with historic building stock surviving bad heritage policy and local developers managing to navigate a flawed system. I understand it's not necessarily a single person's "fault" and it is a systemic problem of social incentives and bureaucratic inertia, but, well, it is what it is regardless of the reasons why, and some (many) places are better managed.