Halifax regional council recently upheld an appeal by nearby property owners of a waterfront development project on the Cunard Block on Lower Water Street (Oct. 1 story). Apparently, the developer sought changes to the planning rules and the design review committee approved eight of the nine requests, even though HRM planners recommended that only four be granted.
Why does it seem that the promoter of every significant property development requests variances from the planning rules? It appears many are successful. I thought the purpose of establishing planning regulations was to set out rules and guidelines for the benefit of both residents and developers and avoid costly and long, drawn-out battles about specifics of a development.
Why does the city (and Develop NS) feel the need to establish apartments, condos, office towers and commercial areas on every inch of the waterfront?
Ironically, in the Develop NS presentation to council in support of the Cunard Block development (and against the appeal), their PDF document shows a beautiful picture of a large celebration on the waterfront with hundreds of people watching some performer. Well, forget about that when this apartment building is constructed.
Apartment buildings can be constructed anywhere. Why erode limited waterfront space for a generic apartment building?
Look at other cities — Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Ont., to name a few — where a major part of the waterfront is for the use of all citizens as parkland and general light recreation activities.
The developer of the proposed Cunard Block has a reasonably good track record in developments around HRM. It is natural that they wish to develop the property. However, the city should be looking out for all residents, not simply the developer.
I recall several years ago when the Bedford Waterfront Development (now Develop NS) was infilling land in the basin. Somebody asked them why they were infilling and they answered, “Well, to build condos.” And they were asked: “Why build condos?” And they answered, “Well, to pay for the infilling.” That is great circular reasoning.
It would be encouraging to see our council (and Develop NS) take a longer view of property development and keep some quality land available for future use as parkland and recreational use by our children and their children.
Yes, there is a cost of foregoing apartment and condo development on waterfront land, but the long-term cost of not having parkland and recreational facilities for everybody is higher.
Their track record is quite poor. Just observe the Bedford Highway mess and anticipate the future mess of Larry Uteck Boulevard — the results of a lack of proper planning for future development and traffic.
David Knowles, Bedford
