Tag Archives: development agreement

The Mayflower Factory Building Project Needs Work!

Maybe you know of the Mayflower Tobacco Factory building? Its a small brick building near the Halifax Common and Armories on Nora Bernard. Built in the 1800s, it survived the Halifax Explosion. Now it’s home to ~23 small locally owned businesses and services. But, as with a lot of older buildings, a developer has another idea for its future.

The plan includes demolitions, a 17-storey tower and facade fronts. Quite a salute to its past. FHC wrote to HRM to caution against demolitions, their role in the climate and affordability crises, to offer better options for density and as always ask HRM to protect & expand green space on Halifax’s Common. See the letter below:

Feb 21, 2025
Dear Heritage Planners and Advisory Committee Members:
Re: Mayflower Factory Heritage Development Application

To contextualize this submission I draw your attention to the recent World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Global Risks Report (Feb 5, 2025). It identifies the majority of critical long-term risks facing the world as environmental. Based on a survey of 900 experts, the coming 10 years will be reshaped by: #1 extreme weather events; #2 biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse; #3 critical change to Earth systems; #4 natural resource shortages; #10 pollution.

This is relevant as a planning decision such as the Mayflower Factory Heritage Development Application as it is an actual decision point where HRM can and must negotiate to minimize impact of these risks and harms. Because GHG emissions have to stop, we must stop the emissions. Climate impact must be a key factor in the decisions relating to this application. Demolitions, construction and building is adversely harming our Climate Crisis: Upfront or embodied carbon or energy used to produce materials and products for buildings accounts for about 11% of global green house emissions. Operational Energy is energy used for lighting, heating, cooling buildings and accounts for about 28% of global GHGs.

My report “Buildings for the Climate Crisis – A Halifax Case Study” looks at preliminary assessments of GHGs associated with the demolition of existing low rise buildings and compares these to mid-rise (9-storeys) and to high-rises (16, 30, 22, 24 storeys) on Halifax’s Carlton Block. It is based on researched evidence. It explains why demolition and new construction of a tower such as for the proposed Mayflower Factory building are a bad choice for the climate. Demolitions unnecessarily replace existing floor area and unnecessarily uses materials and the energy to produce, transport and install these. There are better options for density and the climate. I invite you to take a look. Built Form and Density: My report also uses scientific research to explain that the taller the building, the disproportionately greater the GHGs because of disproportionately greater use of energy intensive products and materials (glass, steel, concrete, aluminum). Towers usually have a larger footprint or land area than smaller in-fill or modification of existing buildings and generally cause more demolition. Here’s a good slide summary of the report from a presentation to HRM

Note the slide from Decoupling density from tallness in analysing the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of cities, from a team led by Frances Pomponi. It examines four basic urban typologies.https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w with a Life Cycle Emissions and Population Summary. It finds, High Density Low Rise (HDLR) has less than half the Life Cycle GHG Emissions (LCGE) per capita of High Density High Rise (HDHR) buildings.

High-Rise Buildings: Energy and Density by Professor Philip Steadman of UCL sets out existing evidence on density and energy use on built form and density. It describes mathematically how Courtyards are the best, Crosses next, and Towers are only the THIRD best form for density.

Operational Energy: A study by UCL Energy Institute finds office and residential
buildings use more energy per square metre, the taller they are; twice as much for 20 or more storeys when compared to low-rise buildings of 6 storeys or less. Energy
efficiency may be very slowing changing but this will not prevent GHGs now nor does not address an overall problem of towers are less flexible for adaptive reuse.
Natural Resources Shortages: As much as 30% of materials in Nova Scotia landfills
come from demolitions and construction waste. Each year HRM issues hundreds of
demolition permits. As the shortage of natural and material resources increases can we really continue the habit of sending buildings off to the landfill?

Very real but ignored is the wastefulness of demolitions and the penalty to communities such as Nova Scotia’s Arlington Heights or other marginalized rural areas where the landfills for the materials are hidden. A 2024 HRM staff report found there are 12,000 vacant lots within HRM. These should be prioritized for building and infilling gentle density and missing middle ahead of any demolitions. These can all be built beginning demolition and disruption of a a Heritage Conservation District. My report has many examples of smaller scale infill, add-on to existing buildings. Many cities are successful adding density in 4-6 storeys that compliments existing architectural style. Ad include affordability.

The Halifax Common: The adjoining neighbourhood of Creighton’s Field developed
along the Halifax Common. The mixed low rise buildings respectfully frame and outline the Common. The if the proposed development at 5563 Nora Bernard Street is approved as presented a 150 years relationship will be broken by gentrification
façadism, maximized profit. It will impact traffic and shadow on the Halifax Common, the Citadel as well as the neighbourhood. The development will also intensify reliance on this premier public green space without offering any of its own. Like a parasite, taking but not giving or committed to the good health of the host.
Without looking at the macro scale of inter-relationships of how our established historic neighbours relate to Halifax’s green spaces their sense of openness continues to be lost, clogged one building at a time and further detracting from quality of life. This is true also of the cumulative impact of the numerous redevelopments that will follow this precedent setting one.

In your decision please consider the following:
Social Harm: eviction, displacement, inflation, loss of affordability, gentrification.
Cultural Harm: façadism that destroys a significant historical & cultural site within a Heritage Conservation District.
Environmental Harm to climate: demolition, materials waste, landfill, double impact on upfront carbon, tower as the worst built form choice for embodied / operational carbon /density.
Halifax Common Harm: intensified use of Halifax Common without any new public
green space, increased noise, shadow, wind, traffic, loss of open sky & morning
sunlight. FHC supports more housing, specifically more affordable housing. We support change, specifically by building on not destroying what we have. We support density, specifically at 4-6 storeys to minimize upfront & operational carbon. Climate impact must be a key factor in the decisions relating to this application.
Finally HRM’s planning freely gives away increased zoning height without requirement for protection of, replacement of or any new affordability. The level of rezoning such as we are experiencing in Halifax inflates land values. Towers, the worst form for density and climate, as well HRM’s penchant for towers is driving ever higher towers because of the inflated value of the land. If Paris can do otherwise, why can’t Halifax?

The application needs work. Please get it right.

HRM Council Approves Carbon Bombs for Carlton Block

On January 23 HRM Council voted to give the Dexel / Lawen development even more benefit but still without any public benefit in exchange. For almost a decade HRM Council and staff ignored public concerns about the Lawen and the Rouvalis families’ two projects and refused requests that the four towers be considered together. Citizens support the need for development and density but want better options. Now the combined impact on the existing/future affordability, climate, traffic, community, heritage, wind, shadow, noise etc. will only be understood in real time. HRM made no attempt to balance the private, for-profit interests of the developer with societal needs. The HRM public hearing recording begins at 8:08 & the citizen speakers at 8:34 -Its worth the watch. See details below the video.

Continue reading →

Cancel the Proposed WSP 23-storey high-rise-Case 22927

The Westwood high-rise tower at 2032-2050 Robie Street has already been turned down by HRM Mayor and Council. Height for this location was to be restricted to 6-storeys. The Development Agreement is discretionary-Mayor and Council should cancel the project.

Dear HRM Planners, Mayor and Council
Re: Cancel the Proposed WSP high-rise- Case 22927

The proposed Westwood high-rise tower at 2032-2050 Robie Street has already been turned down by HRM Mayor and Council. Height for this location was to be restricted to 6-storeys. Council’s decision to allow a Development Agreement is discretionary and should be cancelled. It is effectively raising the dead. This Development Agreement not only denies the earlier council decision and staff recommendations to limit the height to 6 storeys, it makes a mockery of public participation by voiding the historic and more recent input of citizens.

Values reflected by statements such as Councillor Smith’s June 2019 motion “In recognition of the substantial investment made in the preparation of a planning applications for the site located at 2032- 2050 Robie Street, Halifax“ beg the question whose interest are Mayor, Council and staff representing? The owner’s investment of money in thinking about what to do with their land is not a legitimate basis for approving a project. Continue reading →

FHC Requests HRM Auditor General Review Public Consultative Process as a Charter Matter

August, 2020-Letter to HRM Auditor General
Re- Review of HRM Planning’s public consultative process as a Charter matter
This letter (accompanied by 10 brief case studies) is to request that HRM Auditor General conduct a review of HRM Planning Department’s public engagement process and outcomes with respect to HRM planning and council votes. In writing to you we wish to note that we are aware of your July 2018 report to HRM Council on the operation of the Planning Department with respect to development agreements. We are prompted to write regarding a crucial aspect of the operations of that Department not addressed in the report, namely public participation.
The HRM Charter, Part VIII, s.208 states: “The purpose of this Part is to …(c) establish a consultative process to ensure the right of the public…to participate in the formulation of planning strategies…”
Continue reading →

Herald Op Ed: Why do HRM’s mayor and council hold the Common in such contempt?

K’JIPUKTUK (Halifax) On June 23, the Halifax Common, Canada’s oldest and largest, turned 257. There is good news.

A pedestrian walks across the Halifax Common in early March. “Although HRM’s Centre Plan intends to add 15,000-30,000 new citizens to the Centre Plan area, it has not designated any new urban parks and it includes no green networks. This is intentional, not an oversight.” Photo: Ryan Taplin

The 1994 Halifax Common Masterplan goals committed to by the city continue to be front and fore in citizens’ present-day desires. This is reflected in findings of the public consultation for the new masterplan begun in 2017 — plan for the entire Halifax Common; keep it open with green, natural landscapes and water features; minimize development; limit imposing structures; create a sense of connection; include walking and cycling paths; rebalance uses — recreation, arts, events, growing food; ensure access, diversity, inclusion, safety, youth, family.

But the rest is bad.

Unfortunately, the draft Halifax Masterplan, last seen in June 2019, does not plan for the entire Common, but only the city-owned property. This continues governments’ well-established pattern of diminishing, degrading or selling off the public’s land. Immediately before the consultation, the city was silent on the sale of the CBC-TV lands and was secretive on its privatization of the Wanderers’ Grounds.

Presently, the COVID-19 pandemic has us reorganizing society and economy with new forms for work, school and leisure that are still evolving. That public open space is vital to mental and physical health is increasingly evident as people seek to escape small apartments, to exercise or to enjoy a connection to nature. And the need for space for safe social distancing to walk or bike has cities around the world investing millions to create permanent bike lanes and new parks.

But although HRM’s Centre Plan intends to add 15,000-30,000 new citizens to the Centre Plan area, it has not designated any new urban parks and it includes no green networks. This is intentional, not an oversight.

One positive outcome from COVID-19 worldwide is less traffic and parking demand and lower greenhouse gas emissions — nearly half because of transportation, primarily trucks and cars. The Halifax Common’s 240 acres is about 20 to 25 per cent parking lots. There is an obvious opportunity to re-naturalize, re-wild or landscape them to create new park space, and a cheap, efficient way to deal with major impacts from climate change (i.e., stormwater, flood management, heat waves, carbon sink) and pollution. New habitat, revitalization of dead zones and increased citizens’ care for and interest in nature are important side benefits.

But Mayor Mike Savage and council have no plans to change this usage. In fact, they recently approved plans for a new eight-storey parking garage by the Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History. That’s despite about 3,000 citizens petitioning against the garage and for protection of the Halifax Common.

Along with a second parking garage on the former CBC-TV site, a total of at least 1,500 cars will now congest one of the city’s most walked, biked, played-on areas at the confluence of Citadel High, the Nova Scotia Museum, Bengal Lancers, Wanderers’ Grounds, skate park, soccer field, Oval, children’s playground and a proposed new aquatic centre. These will now face a wall of parking garages, enjoy a soundscape of traffic and emergency vehicles and endure the health harms of toxic emissions.

But what of citizens’ desire to minimize development, limit imposing structures and keep the Common open?

Well, a minimum of 10 new highrises, between eight and 30- storeys, are in the works on or around the Common through development agreements. And in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars in development rights (i.e., profit) handed to developers, affordable housing unit numbers are going backwards.

Councillor Shawn Cleary’s motion for 25 storeys at the Willow Tree in exchange for 10 units for 15 years has now been cashed out for $1.8 million; Coun. Lindell Smith’s motion for 23 -storeys next door will net $180,000 and Coun. Waye Mason’s support for 16-, 22-, 26- and 30-storey towers will destroy about 100 affordable housing and small-scale commercial units that won’t be replaced.

Passing the Centre Plan formally increases height limits in Designated Growth Areas and Corridors. This further incentivizes the demolition of thousands of unique small-scale Halifax buildings and character streetscapes, such as those by the Halifax Common on Robie or along South Street.

Planning for demolition rather than deep energy retrofits or infill also harms the collective Common. Thirty-nine per cent of GHG emissions come from building and construction, adding to climate change. And citizens living, walking or cycling by traffic corridors are well understood to suffer detrimental health impacts (asthma, lung function, strokes, heart attacks, cancers) from associated air pollution and noise, such that experts suggest residences and parks be set back 150 metres (a block) from traffic corridors.

HRM recently reversed its decision to purchase diesel buses and now will go with an entirely electric fleet. It also recently reversed an earlier decision to purchase an armoured vehicle. It is presently looking into changing the zoning of 136 acres for sale to protect the Williams Lake Backlands area. And HRM just adopted its HalifACT 2050 climate change plan. Why does it continue to be so difficult for the mayor and council to protect the Halifax Common?

The Common is physically at the heart of the peninsula and thus of HRM. How can councillors continue to fail to listen to the public’s voice?

Peggy Cameron is co-chair, Friends of Halifax Common.
Please support local media!-https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/local-perspectives/peggy-cameron-why-do-hrms-mayor-and-council-hold-the-common-in-such-contempt-467838/

Comedian Cathy Jones says Halifax losing ‘its livability and its character’ due to high-rise developments

Chronicle Herald, July 8, 2019, Francis Campbell
Comedian Cathy Jones says Halifax losing ‘its livability and its character’ due to high-rise developments

Comedian Cathy Jones speaks from the steps of city hall Thursday morning, asking Halifax regional council to step up to change proposed high-density developments for the block of Spring Garden Road and Robie, Carlton and College streets. – Francis Campbell

Cathy Jones thrives on an ability to make people laugh, to get a rise out of a live or TV audience. But the 64-year-old St. John’s-born comedian doesn’t see the proliferation of proposed highrise developments on peninsular Halifax as a laughing matter.

“My point here today is to challenge city council to do better for the city of Halifax,” Jones said Thursday from the steps of city hall. “Who is the city council working for? The people of this city elect a city council believing in some small way that they actually represent them, when in fact, the proposals of these kinds of buildings for our downtown are so off base.”

Jones referred to proposed developments as city duncity instead of density. She was talking particularly about two separate development proposals that would bring four towers of 30, 26, 20 and 16 storeys to a one-hectare block of property at Spring Garden Road and Robie, Carlton and College streets. The projects would accommodate two multi-use developments and would move the Cold Cure Institute building and the McCoy Building a short distance from their College Street foundations to 1452-1456 Carlton St. Several buildings would be demolished. Those developments are scheduled to be discussed at council Monday evening.

Jones also commented on the three developments that were approved late Wednesday night after regional council burned the midnight oil for three public meetings.

An eight-storey plus penthouse building on Wellington Street in south-end Halifax passed by a vote of 11-3 Wednesday. A redevelopment and addition to the corner of South Park Sreet and Victoria Road and a three-building, 100-unit development on a 72,000-square-foot property between Bayers Road and Young Street also passed.

“Last night, in the middle of the summer when many people are not in town, the city pushed through a proposal for three new highrises,” said Jones, who has lived in Halifax for nearly 26 years.

a proportional 3-D-printed model of proposed developments at Spring Garden Road and Robie Streets developed by a volunteer citizen group. — A proportional 3-D-printed model of proposed developments at Spring Garden Road and Robie Streets developed by a volunteer citizen group.

“The city is losing all of its livability and its character and its practical community quality because of these monoliths that the city council is approving left, right and centre, going up without consulting properly the people who live here,” Jones said.

“When all the nice neighbourhoods are destroyed, the walkability and livable quality, nobody who used to live there will be living in these buildings. I have been on TV for 30 years and I couldn’t afford to live in one of these buildings. All over this city are people looking for housing, families who want to stay downtown.”

Development Options Halifax calls for all developments presently under consideration and proposed changes under the Centre Plan to be modeled before approval. They are asking citizens to sign a petition found HERE.

“I want the city to say, no, we’re not doing these developments,” said Peggy Cameron of Development Options. “I want them to recognize that this (Carlton developments) is a heritage neighbourhood. In 2012, 2016, the heritage trust asked for this whole neighbourhood to be considered for a heritage district, they were ignored. Yet, the city quite happily entertained two developers for four towers. It’s too massive, it’s too large, it’s 80 per cent the size of the Nova Centre and it’s not necessary.”

Hadrian Laing, an architectural student at Dalhousie University, has produced a 3D model of the Carlton development projects, showing what the block of property looks like now and what it will look if the developments go ahead. Laing said he has massed an alternative development proposal that would create 303 new residential units without exceeding nine storeys in height. It would also save a couple of existing buildings.

An artist rendering of new developments at Spring Garden Road, Carlton, College and Robie streets.

Janet Brush, 72, a lifelong Halifax resident who now lives on London Street, said destroying buildings is not a sound idea.

“One thing that really outrages me is tearing down perfectly good buildings to put up these monoliths,” Brush said. “All that stuff goes in the landfill and there are empty spaces where they could allow something like this, like the old St. Pat’s site for example. To tear down perfectly good buildings is to me an outrage. Climate change, our landfills filling up, it’s just such a horrible waste. We have the technology to build buildings that will last thousands of years. We build buildings and tear them down.”

Jones, a veteran of the This Hour Has 22 Minutes satrical and parody comedy show, joked that she and her supporters were the new city council.

“As of 10:30 this morning we took over and we have a much better plan for the city,” Jones said.

None of the elected councillors or the mayor popped out of the city hall building to comment.

“I thought one or two would come out,” Brush said. “I am very disappointed, especially in the mayor (Mike Savage). I thought he was doing a good job the first few years but I’m beginning to change my mind on that.”

Continue reading →