Last week the heritage advisory committee outright refused the United Gulf proposal to build two glass towers on Granville/Hollis street in Halifax, saying that the towers' "scale, proportion and mass would have a negative impact on the neighbouring heritage properties". This is absolutely outrageous, where do they get this from?? For the record, there are at least 4 modern office towers surrounding the site in question: Centennial Building on Hollis Street, Sovereign Place on Sackville Street, Summit Place on Lower Water Street and Maritime Centre on Barrington.

If you care about Halifax, it's time to spring in to action. Here is what can be done, email the city councillors. In fact Dawn Sloan (councillor for the downtown district) is eager to hear public opinion!! Here are the best people to contact:

Heritage Advisory Committee
Phone: 490-6519
E-Mail:parsonst@halifax.ca

Councillor’s on the Heritage Advisory Committee:

Councillor Dawn Sloane - District 12 (Halifax Downtown)
2343 Creighton Street
Halifax, NS B3K 3R8
Work: (902) 490-4752
Cell: (902) 488-4812
Fax: (902) 490-4759
Email: sloaned@halifax.ca

Councillor Robert Harvey - District 20 (Lower Sackville)
272 Hallmark Avenue
Lower Sackville, NS B4C 3R1
Work: (902) 864-4160
Cell: (902) 488-4820
Fax: (902) 869-4031
Email: harveyb@halifax.ca

Mayor Peter Kelly
Email: kellyp@halifax.ca
Phone: (902) 490-4010

Find out who your councillor is
http://www.halifax.ca/districts/contact.html

More information on the development:
http://www.downtownhalifax.ns.ca/images/tex-park.pdf

I am going to send a letter to my councillor, Dawn Sloane, Peter Kelley, and each council member.

Also, another article in the Daily News said the following:

"The TV cameras were waiting, but the hot-button issue of United Gulf's two-towers proposal is going to a public hearing with hardly a peep from council. With two reports before it regarding the controversial development - thumbs-down from the heritage advisory committee, thumbs-up from the District 12 planning advisory committee - council decided to send the matter to a public hearing. That hearing is set for Feb. 28. Council has "an intense desire" to find out what the public thinks, said Mayor Peter Kelly.
United Gulf wants to build two towers - one residential, the other a hotel - with a common, four-level base. The overall design is quite different from anything else in downtown Halifax: it's characterized by an asymmetrical, vase-shaped north tower that twists slightly as its rises, and a recessed, slightly curved, south tower.

It's time to take control of this great city!!!!

When do heritage committees ever actually want anything new built; it's not in their interest, so that's what you would expect. These towers are not that outrageously large for Halifax. At the very most, perhaps some minor design changes to the base might be all that is necessary.

That's one of the problems I have with the approval process here. It is extremely adversarial for the most part. Many groups try to torpedo proposals rather than ask for reasonable modifications and developers usually appeal the decisions, wasting a lot of time and money.

Well this is annoying. (Taken from today's Herald)



Is HRM hooked on highrises?

By ARTHUR A. IRWIN

The City of Halifax has long boasted many historic landmarks, much appreciated not only by residents but also as an attraction to visitors to our fair city. Only in recent years have steps been taken in an attempt to retain a portion of our historic culture.

In 1998, a municipal planning strategy was adopted, in which a mandatory policy instructs council to "make every effort to preserve or restore" views from Citadel Hill that "impart to Halifax a sense of its history." Policy 7.2.1 states that new buildings should "reinforce" the proportions of adjacent heritage buildings.

This is written in simple English, but unfortunately, many do not get the message; nor do they have a reasonable understanding of its true meaning. Almost on an annual basis, projects far exceeding these guidelines are submitted for approval and, in too many cases, they get approved.

If the Municipal Government Act was respected and well-enforced, developers would not invest thousands of dollars in proposals that far exceed the guidelines.

Why do they present these proposals to council? They know there is a good chance they will get approved. It simply takes time, money and patience.

Our municipal planning staff is not always to blame; it is council that makes the final decision..

Eventually, driving up Citadel Hill to view our city will result in disappointment. What will one see? A few years ago, there was considerable discussion regarding the view plane from Citadel Hill. These are now forgotten words!

It is quite obvious our decision-makers have a serious deficiency in their appreciation for the "historic city" we once knew. Already, our waterfront does little as an attraction to visitors and residents. A long, narrow strip skirting the waterfront provides a make-believe park. It is better than nothing, but if a family wishes to go for a stroll, they must pay a $2 hourly parking fee simply to enjoy our city, even on weekends.

The Waterfront Development Corporation is doing little to encourage shoppers to visit the stores in these locations.

How can elected officials of our Halifax Regional Municipality side with a developer when they know this is not the true wishes of those who provided their necessary "X" on election day? Are they working in the best interest of the city or the developer?

Has anybody suggested an information session for our council members to become better versed in the real meaning of our municipal planning strategy?

Unfortunately, because of past experiences, many Halifax residents assume the worst will happen and show little interest in providing a voice at a time when it is badly needed.

Naturally, the developers want their structures near the waterfront, but could they survive in our industrial parks? Our next concern will be the Halifax Infirmary site, then Point Pleasant Park, "if they can get through the gates," and the list goes on. The Infirmary site should house a new library and possibly law courts, and any remaining land should be used as a park.

The projects in the works will not only be the ruination of the Citadel, but they will not provide the necessary additional parking and will increase the population density and traffic, all of which are currently in a state of chaos.

Arthur A. Irwin lives in Halifax.

What the hell else to they want built there? Thanks for the information, I'll send an email to Sloane tomorrow. Damn Citadel Hill guidelines.

And at the same time people complain about urban sprawl.

In my(radical) opinion the Citadel is more a liability then an asset to Halifax.(With the current "view planes" regulations) Sure the view is great, but we can't build on it nor can we build anything high in front of it.

Allright, now is your chance to get involved, here's how...

The most important thing to do is SHOW UP to the Public Hearing, Tuesday, Feb 28th at 6:00pm, Halifax City Hall 1841 Argyle Street. Here is also a key tip: You need to get there as close to 5.30pm as possible. Put your name on the speakers list close to Chamber door in order to get into the queue. If you don't you'll have to wait to the end when 'any other speakers' will be invited up. Make sure you show up, and make sure you're heard. All we need to do is outnumber the heritage advocates and let them know that their views are actually hurting this city.

Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to come to this meeting. Here are some key points I plan on bringing up when I go:

The proposed development is not directly violating the MPS, no matter how many times you here the Nova Scotia Heritage Trust argue this point. The development does not infringe upon any of the protected viewplanes. The building is higher than the citadel ramparts, but that is allowed, as long as you don't see the building over the ramparts when standing in the Citadel parade square - the developers have obeyed this rule in their plan. Part of the MPS suggests that buildings "should" be similar in scale to neighboring heritage properties, but is not an absolute requirement.

Many people say that the development will hurt tourism, because they won't be able to see the view from the Citadel, or our Heritage properties will be overshadowed. This is FALSE!!! First of all, look at Boston. Most people would say it is a very historic, beautiful city... I have never heard anyone say, "gee I love Boston but it's a shame about those tall buildings that completely ruin the city's heritage." Secondly, is tourism our #1 priority in for this city? An industry that provides mostly part-time, low paying seasonal jobs? Aren't issues like stopping suburban sprawl (ie having a dense down town core) and revitalizing the struggling Barrington area more important than the freakin view from the citadel??

Most importantly, if you are young (I am 24) stress the fact that you, unlike thousands of other young people and university graduates, have decided to stay in this city rather than flee to a bigger centre. Many people such as myself are growing increasingly frustrated with backward attitudes that insist on building boring heritage look-alikes. We are the future of this city.

Back up all your arguments with fact. This is the #1 weapon against the heritage folks, they are making an irrational, emotional appeal. Look at case studies from other cities about density in downtown areas, get a copy of the MPS at the city's planning office in the West End Mall (available for $15, hard copy only), and familiarize yourself with the former Tex Park site.

Here is what else you can do:

1. Send letters to all the local media outlets, even national ones if you're feeling energetic. Most letters being printed in the papers now are against the development. The appropriate emails are:
- The Coast: letters@thecoast.ca, editor@thecoast.ca
- The Daily News: http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?pid=25 (go to the web site and fill out the form)
- The Herald: letters@herald.ca. Include full name, daytime phone number, proper civic address. Max 200 words

2. Send letters to mayor Peter Kelly and all city council members. Contact information can be found at http://www.halifax.ca/districts/index.html

3. Send emails to all of your friends and get them to show up to the public hearing.


Also here is an excerpt from The Coast, February 23 - March 2, 2006. Editorial by Kyle Shaw

"...Alas, the same day council deals with the Cultural Plan, it considers the Unite Gulf towers. These are the two, twisting, 27-stoery buildings proposed for Granville and Hollis Streets downtown, in what is otherwise a budding heritage district. They violate the Municipal Planning Strategy (which helps protect the view of the harbor from Citadel Hill), the city's Heritage Advisory Committee advises against them and, for what it's worth, the Cultural Plan puts a high value on heritage.

The city's planning department, however, has approved he development. And failing a Study Study, to figure out which goals and policies actually matter, we lumber forward with the next official step. Luckily that's a public hearing, a chance to put your foot down. If you want to go, plan to be at city hall Tuesday at 6pm."

I sent an email to The Coast letting them know my opinion, I urge you to do the same before Feb 28th.

DAILY NEWS

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Towers of babble: buildings disputed

By Stephen Bornais
The Daily News

A group opposed to a pair of high-rise towers planned for downtown Halifax will make another push to block the buildings.

Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia promises its members will be out in force at a public hearing Tuesday before regional council.

Peter Delefes, past president of the trust, said the towers violate the city's Municipal Planning Strategy and are therefore illegal.

"There are polices, there are laws ... and they're not being observed," Delefes said.

United Gulf Developments has proposed a pair of 27-storey towers on the old Tex Park site on Granville Street and an adjacent property on Hollis Street.

The $150-million project would contain a hotel as well as residential condominiums and commercial space. The buildings, as designed by Toronto architect Siamak Hariri, are twisted so that they curve toward Halifax Harbour.

Whatever the merits of the design, Delefes said, the towers are simply inappropriate for that area of downtown. Heritage Trust argues the towers would dwarf everything around them and cut off views from Citadel Hill.

"They're way out of scale relative to the surrounding buildings," he said.

Backers of the project have accused groups such as Heritage Trust of being anti-development. It is a charge Delefes categorically rejects.

"We're for development, but good development," he said. "This is not good development. This is excessive."

United Gulf president Navid Saberi said he is optimistic council will support the project, despite what he called Heritage Trust's "misrepresenting" of the facts in its efforts to block the building.

"(The towers are) within the viewplane. This fits with the other buildings," Saberi said.

The towers will add to the city, Saberi said, and will become an iconic part of Halifax's profile.

"The quality of these buildings is second to none," he said.

Halifax regional council is expected to yea or nay the proposal at its Feb. 28 meeting. The decision is made more difficult by the conflicting advice council has received.

The city's heritage advisory committee has said no, going so far as to italicize and underline the word "refuse" in its report to council.

The District 12 planning advisory committee, however, advises it to go ahead. The Halifax Downtown Business Commission has also come out in favour.

The public hearing starts at 6 p.m. at city hall.

sbornais@hfxnews.ca

the Herald's version:


Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is gearing up for another public battle over a proposed highrise development in downtown Halifax.

The group has joined other heritage outfits in saying the twin-tower project planned for the former Tex-Park site "threatens" heritage buildings in the area and views from historic Citadel Hill down to Halifax Harbour.

"The massive, twisted glass towers would dominate the modest, detailed character of (Halifax Regional Municipality’s) first planned heritage district on Barrington Street," Heritage Trust’s website says.

City hall is considering making part of Barrington Street a municipal heritage district, akin to Quebec City’s lower town or Gastown in Vancouver.

In Halifax, United Gulf Developments is proposing a pair of highrises — one 27 floors, the other 26 – that would house condominium units, a hotel, conference rooms and restaurants. The planned project, between Granville and Hollis streets, is to be the subject of a public hearing Tuesday evening at Halifax city hall.

Heritage Trust’s website is encouraging opponents to contact Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly and regional councillors before the hearing. United Gulf officials have said the $150-million development will bring a unique design to Halifax and "kick-start" the downtown core.

The contentious towers have elicited conflicting advice for regional council. The city’s heritage advisory committee has rejected the scheme, while the downtown district’s planning advisory group has endorsed it.

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown), who sits on both advisory groups, said it’s "incredibly important" to hear from the public at the upcoming hearing.

"I know that we’ve gotten over 200 e-mails from people stating their thoughts," she said Friday night. "This (is) a question of what we want as a city and what we value as our city."

The Heritage Canada Foundation has come out publicly against the two towers.

Peter Delefes, the province’s representative on the foundation, said the group named the views from Citadel Hill as one of the 10 most endangered places in Canada.

"In this case it’s not a building, but rather it’s the view and the impact it’s going to have on the heritage buildings," he said Friday, adding the proposed buildings would violate policies under the Municipal Planning Strategy.

"These buildings are way out of scale to what’s down there," said Mr. Delefes, who is also the past-president of the Heritage Trust.

"Those two towers are going to be so tall that basically they’re going to be the first thing you see on the skyline. . . . They’ll dominate over the Town Clock, they’ll dominate over the Citadel."

Building height has been a sore spot in Halifax for years. Proposed highrise developments regularly attract controversy as history buffs face off against developers and business promoters.

Last year, Heritage Trust successfully fought a proposed 17-storey development for the Midtown Tavern site. That project was given the thumbs-down from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)

( klipscombe@herald.ca)

So they don't consider the fact that Halifax has buildings taller than this already, and in similar areas? Maybe they would be happy if the base looked like old storefronts?

Rendering of the project:
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9849/unitedgulfnewpano6dy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Here's two more pics I got from their website.

http://www.unitedgulf.ca/images/building/7.jpg
http://www.unitedgulf.ca/images/building/2.jpg

It looks like it's draped in plastic.
But I do like it.

Very nice!!!!!!! If tex park is not aprroved or is changed(for the worse) it will be a crime..far worse then any "negative" effects to the "near by" "historical" properties.

It looks like it's draped in plastic.
I think that just has to do with the architectural models. Same with those little bits of string

Love the look of these buildings, it will be terrible if they are not approved.

Is it being built in the vacant lot down on Hollis St.? If so, I was down there today and there is a large building crane and beginnings of a foundation in that lot.

It is being built on an empty lot on Hollis st. but it's one block west of the construction site that is there now. That site is for a 8 storey hotel/condo.

from the herald...

Respect heritage


The proposed development of the TexPark site in no way conforms with our city’s objectives, adeptly laid out in the Municipal Planning Strategy, which our council is obliged to follow.

This council is being called upon to enforce the letter and the spirit of these policies in our downtown area. The spirit of these policies means no more highrise development in "olde Halifax." Let’s reconstruct our city to respect our heritage buildings and our spectacular natural setting.

It is apparent the developer needs some "input and enlightenment" concerning our downtown objectives from its neighbour, the Barrington Street Heritage District, before it proceeds with development of this site. In Rockingham, this developer has sought "input and enlightenment" from the Sisters of Charity, who are overseeing the Village Green development on their former 75-acre parcel of land.

The Sisters have expressed their concern for the environment and their neighbours. I am sure the savvy Sisters would nix the "twisted sisters" proposed for Granville Street.


James F. Wiltshire, Halifax


I kind of wish all the heritage advocates would talk like this... at least then no one would take them seriously.

Make sure you email counsil about your support for the towers, or go to the hearing Tuesday night, or both!

Oooohhh The Herald is really making me mad lately! I know that no media is really ever unbiased, but could they not make at least an attempt at presenting both sides of this story? I have written in to the paper twice supporting the development, I followed all their rules for writing letters to the editor, but they have not been published. ONLY the negative ones have. Their coverage of the development overall has been extremely biased.

The Daily News has been much more balanced in their reporting. I know I've said this already but it's really crucial to write in to the local media and express your views, even if they choose not to publish publish it.

I'll see everyone at the public hearing tomorrow, Feb 28th at 6pm!

PS: I would highly suggest you show up early, at least 5:15 or 5:30. I have a feeling it's going to be packed.

Here is the real threat that nobody is talking about:

http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/YWCA03.jpg

Also check out
http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Vanish.html

It's on TV right now, sorry I couldn't make it. Things look like they're doing alright so far!

WOW, 68 speakers. I don't know if I should be excited or angry. Sounds like a long evening for everyone there. I'll try to watch the whole thing.

Although even so far I have some things I wish they would've told the heritage speakers:

-The Summit building already casts a huge shadow over Sackville Landing (see Google earth).
-My EYE LEVEL is probably at 5 foot 5". They never said that the average person was 5 foot 5".
-The buildings are closer to the harbour than to Citadel Hill.

Yeah, I feel pretty bad about not being there, but I haven't been this sick in quite awhile. :(

According to one of the anti-development speakers, there's "block after block of boarded up buildings" on Gottingen Street. Huh?

i saw that too, I think she was on crack.

I liked the guy with the scottish accent. I didn't agree with him but at least he wasn't boring like 75% of the people there. And everyone knows that hobbits are 5'5, not oompa loompahs. yeesh

oh yeah.. so is the 5'5 assuming that they have no forehead? cause that would be even weirder.

Does anyone else who saw the public hearing think the comments regarding Oompa Loompa's were really off base?

^I agree.

Anyway, I was there until 10 and im planning on going next week aswell. I was very pleasantly surprised by the amount of positive comments made by the public. It was ashame that the architect was subject to the 5 minute rule however. I thought the best part was the guy who called out the heritage trust on publishing an innaccurate depiciton of the tower. I only wish he would have shown his computer render he made of what it would have actually looked like if you were two blocks away and two storeys undergound.

I did write into all the papers and my letter to the editor was in the paper today along with a very well written one by an architect.

Today in the Herald, EVERY letter to the editor re: the Texpark Development was IN FAVOUR.. and there were 5 of them!

Yeah I saw that too! There was also a whole set of letters supporting the United Gulf development in the Daily News, as well as an article in the Business section supporting it saying Halifax should "stop demonizing developers". I have the article clipped out, I'll post it soon.

Daily News - Friday March 3, 2006

Let's stop demonizing Halifax Developers

John McLeod

To say there's a lively debate developing over plans to build a pair of 27-storey towers on the old TexPark site at Granville and Hollis streets is to understate.

So many people showed up at city hall this week that an additional room with a live TV feed had to be set up, and only half those who wanted to speak could be heard, so a second night of debate will be held will be held next Tuesday.

What's most promising about this lively debate is that there seem to be as many supporters of the United Gulf Developments proposal as there are opponents.

That's unusual, because in far too many cases the anti-development crowd has outnumbered and out-shouted developers and their fans at municipal hearings, leaving the impression Halifax isn't interested in growing.

Oh, groups like the city's heritage advisory committee claim they're not anti-develoment.

But its members seem to oppose any new development of any height - the Midtown project, the towers at Brewery Market, etc. - so they leave the rest of us thinking they'll fight against anything over five stories high that doesn't look like it was designed in the 19th century.

The project now subject of development debate is certainly modern in design. One of the buildings, with a vase-like design, has been called a "twisted tower."

But the project would be important to downtown development, bringing to the area a 260-room hotel, 250 condominiums, and 62,000 square feet of commercial space. At nearly 88 meters, they would be the highest buildings in the downtown area.

The developer has gone through a rigorous two-year process, during which planning staff at Halifax Regional Municipality has addressed such concerns as traffic, wind and shadows.

The staff report, recommending the project be approved, concludes the buildings will not interfere with views from Citadel Hill, and would not cast shadows down into Sackville Landing.

The District 12 planning advisory committee also gives a thumbs-up to the project, although it does recommend some slight alterations.

A body of citizens who favour downtown development seem to have decided that this project is worth fighting for.

"Unfortunately, the silent majority who welcomes new and innovative high-rise development and design have not been heard."

"Instead, we bear witness to these heritage groups' very effective, highly organized, an often baseless arguments."

The project also has the support of business organizations like the Greater Halifax Partnership.

Its economist, Fred Morely, told the hearing that "As a community we need to grow (and) we need to change. The real threat to our community is to do nothing."

Will approval of these twin towers set a precedent fro downtown development, and make it easier for other high-rises like the Midtown project to get approval when its developers come back with a revised proposal?

Probably - but that's not necessarily bad.

It's about time we stopped demonizing developers. Some of them have been coming forward with plans to make downtown Halifax more modern without destroying our heritage. Maybe the TexPark proposal is a good place to start.

jlmcleod@eastlink.ca

Something interesting that I noticed when I was leaving the public hearing last week is that on the side of the building across from both the Grand Parade and the TD bank tower (I'm not sure of its name), there's a mural of the Tall Ships, but also prominently displayed are the Purdy's Wharf towers (which, IMO, are as much of a Halifax landmark as Citadel Hill is... sorry Howard). The fact that Purdy's Wharf is painted right on what's basically the entranceway to the Barrington Street Historic District is a pretty good indication that modern architecture isn't going to be its downfall. Just a thought.

I just got back from the public hearing and the debate rages on! The meeting adjurned at 10pm again after hearing from all members of the public who were present and wished to voice their opinion. Even though half of the list did not show up. Today it seemed more like a 50/50 turnout. Council then looked at the shadow study and found out the shadows to not even hit Sackville landing in the summer months. They were about to go into detail about the wind study when Mayor Kelly abrubtly dismissed concil. It will be another 2 weeks before they meet again and hopefully at that time we will get a decision. But as I said, the debate rages on!

From the Chronicle Herald, it pretty much says it all.

Anti-development record not appealing

By ROBERT STAPELLS

Having followed the HRM council’s public hearing on the United Gulf application for a development permit on the former Tex-Park site, and the vigorous opposition spearheaded by Philip and Elizabeth Pacey and the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, I feel compelled to comment.

Some 35 years ago, as a 25-year-old Halifax alderman, I sat in council and listened to the debate on a very contentious piece of municipal legislation. It was the creation of city staff for a set of regulations respecting the preservation of certain views from Citadel Hill, over and in between the existing buildings in downtown Halifax.

The major proponents for the successful passing of the legislation were Elizabeth and Philip Pacey and the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, represented by Howard Epstein. The essence of their argument was that if the city protected these sightlines, then commercial real estate developers would be able to abide by a set of established rules that dictated where highrise buildings could be constructed between the harbour and the Hill – north to south, between Scotia Square and about Government House. In their own words, if a parcel of land is identified that is outside of the legislation, then it qualifies for highrise construction. No contest. The passing of the "View Planes Bylaw" on Jan. 31, 1974, created this law. I voted in favour.

Several years later, long after my adventure on city council, my real estate development company presented an application for a permit to construct an office building on Brunswick Street, on a property that was outside of the legislated area. The city planning department studied the development permit application and delivered a staff report to council recommending the project for approval. The permit was granted.

Mr. and Mrs. Pacey, represented by Howard Epstein along with the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, appealed the decision. In short, two years later, after $400,000 in legal fees, bank interest and taxes, the appeal was dismissed. No cost to them.

A few years later, our company again assembled a plot of land on Granville Street, out of the area covered by the viewplane legislation, and applied for a development agreement for the building known as One Government Place. The requisite public hearings were conducted and the project was granted a permit with the unanimous approval of city council – with vigorous opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Pacey and Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, represented by Howard Epstein. In short, 14 months later, after $190,000 in legal fees, bank interest and taxes, the appeal was dismissed. No cost to them.
There are many other examples of similar cases, involving these three parties, experienced by the development community and previous councils.
Mr. and Mrs. Pacey and the Heritage Trust, represented by Howard Epstein, have a longstanding record of anti-development activity, particularly in the downtown. Together, they have cost private enterprise millions of dollars. HRM taxpayers have been shortchanged on millions of dollars in tax revenue, and thousands of hours of HRM planning and legal department staff time – for 35 years.

Mr. and Mrs. Pacey, represented by Mr. Epstein and Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, are obstructionists. These parties have long ago lost all objectivity, not to mention any credibility.

If history is allowed to repeat itself, council will pass the United Gulf application; the Paceys and Heritage Trust, represented by Howard Epstein, will appeal it; and several months and a few hundred thousand dollars later, the appeal will be dismissed. At appeal, United Gulf will prevail because HRM planning staff have prepared a meticulous report based on compliance with the bylaw, knowing that an appeal by these parties is imminent. The appellant’s case will largely be built on emotion. The system will have been manipulated again, at no cost to the Paceys, Mr. Epstein or Heritage Trust.

The once-proud board of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has been hijacked by like-minded anti-development individuals and should revisit their mandate, refresh, refocus and re-staff. Mr. Epstein may wish to consider redirecting his pro-bono law practice, perhaps, to humanitarian efforts. HRM council should ignore and dismiss Mr. and Mrs. Pacey.
Thirty-five years. Enough!

Robert Stapells is a businessman/developer who served on city council from 1971 to 1974. He has two Beautification Awards from the Halifax Board of Trade and three Heritage Awards for commercial restorations in the downtown, one from Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

I read that article before I went to the second half of the public hearing and I wished my name was on the list to speak. It raises some very good points. And tells people that it is mostly one small group that has been responsible for the lack of large development in this city.

Meeting - Sunday, March 19 at 2pm

Over the past few years there has been a fair share of public battles over new developments in this city. The main advantage that the opponents have had is that they are extremely organized and well connected.

However we can also be organized. I think that to best do this we should meet in person and talk about how we can work together and create our own organization that fights for quality urban design in Halifax.

There are a number of important events coming up, so I would like to meet this Sunday, March 19 at 2pm, at the Paper Chase Cafe on 5228 Blowers Street. Anyone is welcome to attend. If you plan on showing up please email me first at halifaxurbandesign@mac.com and I'll give you more details.

sorry, wrong thread

Wrong thread? I did post it on two seperate threads, I apologize if that's against the rules, just wanted to get the message out.

Geez. So it's come down to whether or not the developer has consulted with the CNIB.

It's approved, 15 to 5!!

^Northend, sorry i wasnt reffering to your post. It was me who accidentally posted in the thread and then edited it.

Anyway......GO HALIFAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

The best part of the meeting was watching Alan Ruffman and the Pacey's skirm as the coucilors all put their 2 cents in, especially when councillor Uteck(I think?) took a quote from one of Elizabeth Pacey's books and turned it right around to use as a pro development sentiment!

Is it just me or did Peter Kelly sound really reluctant/hesitant?

Is it just me or did Peter Kelly sound really reluctant/hesitant?

From what I've heard Peter Kelly supports the development, but he decided to vote against it and make a statement against it (which he rarely does) for political reasons. He wants to get re-elected, and for the most part he sees his base as being against the project. Same goes for Patrick Murphy.

The other councillors I do believe were genuinely against the project.