Category Archives: ACTION

An initiative that takes the form of an action. Could be an action by an affiliate.

FHC Letter-South Park Loft Breaks Public Values & Trust

This December 10, 2015 letter to Design Review Committee Members, Mayor Mike Savage and Regional Council presents reasons why the proposed project South Park Loft should not be permitted to be constructed as planned.

  1. 1994 Halifax Common Plan:
    The 1994 Halifax Common Plan provides goals, objections and specific direction based on the foundations laid through extensive public consultations, and are in support of recognized important public values such as the need for public open space or views to open space and public open green space. It is the role of the Design Review Committee and the Mayor and Council to understand that these public values still remain and ensure that they are respected.
    There are any number of general problems with the effect of this proposal on the area and on Victoria Park, located on the Halifax Common and which contravene the 1994 Halifax Common Plan. The development is too high and massive; casts too much shadow; creates too much wind; destroys too much built, character, affordable housing; occupies too much green space and open sky; dominates views from and of Victoria Park and the Public Gardens; and degrades and overpowers the historic Schmiditville District.
  1. Climate Change- Insurance Bureau of Canada Report
    We’re rapidly building our city and our province into a bigger and deeper green house gas emission mess. A recent Insurance Bureau of Canada Report. https://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/media-centre/media-releases/new-study-estimates-future-costs-of-climate-change describes future costs for Halifax (and therefore the province) from climate change. What is the governance structure in place to address the urgently needed reduction of ghg emissions associated with this (and other) building that includes a lifecycle analyses? This would track ghg associated with demolition materials and disposal, new materials production and composition and other associated infrastructure; energy consumption etc.
    What building standards are in place to ensure this design will withstand high winds, protect right-to-light, promote passive solar, solar thermal, solar pv, increasing permeable surfaces, green space etc. Based on present construction in the city we still seem to think that White Juan and Wet Juan are out of the ordinary rather than potentially a new norm.

    The Greenest Building is the One that is Already Built:
    https://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/lca/The_Greenest_Building_lowres.pdf
    “building reuse almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction. Moreover, it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts that were created during the construction process.”

    Older, Smaller, Better – more economically viable
    The mixed-style, small-scale, multipurpose character that much of Halifax has is exactly what keeps it interesting, livable and economically viable. For proof beyond my opinion I draw your attention to  “Older, Smaller, Better”  a 2014 report by The Preservation Green Lab. It provides the most complete empirical validation to date that neighbourhoods with a mix of older, smaller buildings of diverse age support greater levels of economic and social activity than areas dominated by newer, larger buildings. For details see:
    https://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/greenlab/oldersmallerbetter/report/NTHP_PGL_OlderSmallerBetter_ExecSummary.pdf
    There are many options for developing a sustainable city but buildings such as this have no place in that urgently needed type of plan.
    After the Paris Climate Change Conference we need to reconsider the path we are on. For some inspiration please see Vancouver’s Greenest City Plan as one example of a better way to envision our future: https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/greenest-city-action-plan.aspx
    ~~~~~

Update on Coalition for Responsible Development in HRM

In June 2015 a coalition of  14 community groups signed an open letter to Mayor Savage and the HRM Council about the misuse of the Development Agreement process within HRM.  Friends of Halifax Common supported this letter.

A recent meeting was held to see if these organizations were prepared to form a Coalition for Responsible Development in HRM.  Representatives from the various organizations were in attendance (c.36 people) and were in agreement on this.

To get started, another.. Continue reading →

FHC asks HRM About Armoyen/Chedrawe @ Public Meeting

On September 17, 2016 FHC attended a public meeting about the proposed 29 Storey Armoyen and 25-storey Chedrawe Highrises.  Here are our questions:  1. The Halifax Common was designated as a historic site under the City Charter in 1971.   The 1994 Halifax Common Plan made no mention that high-rises might encircle the Common, as height restrictions were in place at that time; however, it does emphasize the improvement of the Halifax Common and its surroundings. It mentions: special treatment of streetscapes; trees with large canopies; broad views and a sense of openness (rather than the more restrictive notion of view planes); historic houses and places; lands and buildings that are attractive to people at ground level; pedestrian linkages; and safe street crossings. Directions in the Halifax Common Plan were based on extensive public consultations that recognized the need for public open space, views to open space, and green space. These public values remain.

When introducing the site at Robie and Quinpool (on the edge of the Halifax Common), the HRM planners mentioned the Halifax Municipal Plan, the Regional Plan, and the Quinpool Road Commercial Area Plan. Why was there no mention of the 1994 Halifax Common Plan? Like the other plans, it was adopted by the City of Halifax as a policy document. How does the city intend to respect the 1994 Halifax Common Plan and prepare a master landscape design for the Halifax Common when large, inappropriate developments are being proposed one at a time around the edge of the Common? Approving these developments now would diminish future options in carrying out a master plan for the Halifax Common and would preclude proper discussion for a future Centre Plan.

  1. The Robie-Quinpool area already has very strong winds caused by the existing towers. Why has the developer not provided any results of wind studies? Climate change will result in more extreme weather events, so this is a serious omission. The developer’s response that this will be done during the final design phase is not an acceptable answer. Wind studies should be done early in the design process, when height and massing are being considered. To ensure results of the highest possible standard, they should be commissioned independently by the city and paid for by the developer.

  2. To understand the impact of this development on the North Common, we should know how many people use this area. HRM says that 30,000 people use the Oval in a relatively short season (10–12 weeks). Parks Canada estimates that 488,500 people visit Citadel Hill each year but only 155,000 enter Fort George. How many other people participate in organized recreational activities, leisure activities, events, and tournaments on the North Common? How many use it as a walking route? The total is probably several million per year.

  3. How many pedestrians use the sidewalks along Robie Street and Quinpool Road? This area is heavily used and the existing tall buildings already have a negative impact on pedestrians due to wind, shade, and a general aesthetic deficiency at ground level.

  4. The HRM planners stated that this area is changing, citing nearby tall buildings as reasons for considering this development agreement at Robie and Quinpool; however, those buildings either pre-date the current planning regulations or were approved as exceptions through a development agreement process. Accepting them as “precedents” underscores the problem with this current development agreement application, as it would set a precedent for future developments in the area, such as St Pat’s. Why should we have planning regulations and public meetings if developers can set the rules one building at a time?

  5. Cumulative impact is a well-understood concept. What is the city doing to measure and mitigate the cumulative impact of multiple high-rises that are being proposed and built one at a time?

Saving the Oval: Take the Time to Make the Best Decision

Skating’s over at the oval-now what? (Chronicle Herald, April, 2012)

In its rush to Save the Oval, the HRM staff report on the Canada Games Oval recommending a single centralized skating facility on the North Halifax Common has miscalculated the price tag and budget implications.
“One cost missing is NSPI’s forecasted 20% electricity rate increase by 2015,” says Alan Ruffman, Executive member of Friends of Halifax Common.  
“Another is the increased cost of energy consumption and maintenance of such a large outdoor ice surface when Environment Canada is telling us that, thanks to climate change, we’ve just come through the warmest winter on record- the 14th in a row, and one with many extreme weather events that bring high winds, high rain and snowfalls and lots of power outages,” concludes Ruffman. 
Derek Hawes, project manager for the Ice Rink Energy Programme that is operated through the Recreation Facility Association of Nova Scotia, raised several concerns with HRM about the oval.

 “This one facility has a similar refrigeration capacity as eight indoor community arenas, and in another location such as the Central Common or Beasley Field, the waste heat could be used to heat approximately 140 homes or the equivalent number of public buildings such as hospitals or a school,” said Mr Hawes.

“I suggested a number of other skating options, including skating paths in Victoria Park, on the Grand Parade or other community destinations where the waste heat could be used, but for the staff, the oval on the Common was a done deal,” Mr. Hawes continued.  

Hawes is also concerned about the quality of the refrigeration units the city purchased: “I have reason to believe the long-term operating and maintenance costs will be significantly higher than staff projected.”  

“Unfortunately, Council was misled and based their decision on misinformation provided in the staff report- If the oval goes ahead, it would be the most expensive and environmentally unfriendly rink ever built in the province.” concluded Mr. Hawes.

Friends of Halifax Common presented at several HRM Community Councils meetings to urge more time be taken so the best decision is made. Members suggest that the oval could be a focus for the redesign of the Central Common or, as proposed in the original plan for the Canada Winter Games Skating oval, to have a network of community neighbourhood skating venues throughout HRM instead of forcing everyone to drive to one destination.
The North Common is less than one-third of the original public open space on the Halifax Common.  
“The skating oval is another example of where the HRM staff are rushing into a poor planning decision for the Halifax Common instead of respecting a long-term master-plan,” said Beverly Miller, FHC Co-chair.  “Public open space on the Halifax Common will be lost, or continue to be covered with concrete or remain under threat of commercialization as long as there is no proper public process,” concluded Miller.
The estimate for making the oval permanent is approximately $6 million dollars. Although sponsors have come forward, all HRM taxpayers will be contributing $8 per $100,000 property value. No estimates have been provided for multiple outdoor skating rinks throughout HRM. 
-30-

Media Contact: Peggy Cameron-902-258-3354

For information on the Friends of Halifax Common:  https://halifaxcommon.ca/index.html