Quinpool 6067

Consultation has concluded

The property at 6067 Quinpool Road is scheduled to be marketed for development, but first, HRM Regional Council needs your help to decide what kind of development that should be.

As of May 13, 2016, the demolition of the former Saint Patrick’s High School building was complete. Top soil was then overlaid, and hydro-seeding took root in the summer of 2017.

Public Meeting:

The District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee hosted a Public Information Meeting (PIM) to discuss the proposed amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and the Halifax Peninsula Land Use Bylaw to create a site specific zone for 6067 Quinpool Road. The meeting was held on:

Monday, May 9, 2016, 7 – 9 p.m.
Olympic Community Centre, 2304 Hunter Street, Halifax

Click here to view the meeting agenda

Click here to view the final report from WSP


Subsequent to the PIM of May 9, four subsequent meetings of the District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee discussed Case 20510 regarding 6067 Quinpool Road, which concluded by forwarding the case to Centre Plan by which to determine site uses and regulations.


Public comments on the Quinpool 6067 draft land use by-law regulations were collected December 10 to January 4, 2016. We invite you to review the comments submitted by clicking here.

The former site of the Saint Patrick's High School, 6067 Quinpool Road was declared surplus municipal property by Regional Council in 2014, and the land will be prepared for future sale and development.
The municipality undertook an innovative approach to dispose of this property as enabled through Administrative Order 50, Respecting the Disposal of Surplus Real Property. Because the property has been categorized as Economic Development, the municipality had a unique opportunity to advance development through a change in zone. To that end, land use by-law regulations and planning policies are being created for the site that will ensure a mixed-use development with a focus on urban design and built form excellence, which will complement and enrich the Quinpool Road business district and neighbourhoods, as informed by the public.

Public Consultation

The first presentation and open house was held on July 22, 2015, to provide residents with the opportunity to review and comment on three preliminary design directions for this landmark site. The three design directions were prepared by project consultants following a detailed background analysis of the site and the surrounding community.

Consultants and municipal staff reviewed over 600 comments received during the initial public consultation period, and subsequently developed draft land use by-law regulations and municipal plan amendments that will eventually guide future design of the site.

A second presentation and open house was held on December 9, 2015, to review feedback from the first open house, and to present proposed land use by-law regulations and plan amendments.

Public comments on the draft land use by-law regulations were collected December 10 to January 4, 2016. We invite you to review the comments submitted by clicking here.

Consultants and municipal staff reviewed public feedback in order to further refine the proposed by-law and plan amendments, in advance of initiating the Council approval process early in 2016. The future sale of the site is anticipated in 2017, after Regional Council approves plan amendments and land use by-laws as proposed under Centre Plan. Once approved, the property will be marketed for sale.


As of May 13, 2016, the demolition of the former Saint Patrick’s High School building was complete. Top soil was then overlaid, and hydro-seeding took root in the summer of 2017.

Public Meeting:

The District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee hosted a Public Information Meeting (PIM) to discuss the proposed amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and the Halifax Peninsula Land Use Bylaw to create a site specific zone for 6067 Quinpool Road. The meeting was held on:

Monday, May 9, 2016, 7 – 9 p.m.
Olympic Community Centre, 2304 Hunter Street, Halifax

Click here to view the meeting agenda

Click here to view the final report from WSP


Subsequent to the PIM of May 9, four subsequent meetings of the District 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee discussed Case 20510 regarding 6067 Quinpool Road, which concluded by forwarding the case to Centre Plan by which to determine site uses and regulations.


Public comments on the Quinpool 6067 draft land use by-law regulations were collected December 10 to January 4, 2016. We invite you to review the comments submitted by clicking here.

The former site of the Saint Patrick's High School, 6067 Quinpool Road was declared surplus municipal property by Regional Council in 2014, and the land will be prepared for future sale and development.
The municipality undertook an innovative approach to dispose of this property as enabled through Administrative Order 50, Respecting the Disposal of Surplus Real Property. Because the property has been categorized as Economic Development, the municipality had a unique opportunity to advance development through a change in zone. To that end, land use by-law regulations and planning policies are being created for the site that will ensure a mixed-use development with a focus on urban design and built form excellence, which will complement and enrich the Quinpool Road business district and neighbourhoods, as informed by the public.

Public Consultation

The first presentation and open house was held on July 22, 2015, to provide residents with the opportunity to review and comment on three preliminary design directions for this landmark site. The three design directions were prepared by project consultants following a detailed background analysis of the site and the surrounding community.

Consultants and municipal staff reviewed over 600 comments received during the initial public consultation period, and subsequently developed draft land use by-law regulations and municipal plan amendments that will eventually guide future design of the site.

A second presentation and open house was held on December 9, 2015, to review feedback from the first open house, and to present proposed land use by-law regulations and plan amendments.

Public comments on the draft land use by-law regulations were collected December 10 to January 4, 2016. We invite you to review the comments submitted by clicking here.

Consultants and municipal staff reviewed public feedback in order to further refine the proposed by-law and plan amendments, in advance of initiating the Council approval process early in 2016. The future sale of the site is anticipated in 2017, after Regional Council approves plan amendments and land use by-laws as proposed under Centre Plan. Once approved, the property will be marketed for sale.


CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
  • The proposed regulations for developing the property are extremely flexible. If a developer buys 6067 Quinpool and prepares a development that abides by these new regulations, will this development be approved automatically by the city, with no further opportunity for public involvement in the design process?

    sp asked over 3 years ago

    The proposed regulations (draft Land Use By-Law [LUB]) summarized at Open House 2 on December 9, 2015 will be available for public comment in their entirety at a yet-unscheduled Public Information Meeting through the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC).  Following PAC, staff will make any necessary amendments stemming from the feedback received, and proceed to Regional Council for a Public Hearing. A Public Hearing offers members of the public the opportunity to speak directly to Council – the decisions makers – prior to a decision being made.  Once the LUB (and amended area municipal planning strategy) is approved by Regional Council, the property will be offered for sale under competitive bid process. At that point, the new owner would be able to submit an as-of-right development application to develop the site. Submitted plans will be carefully assessed against the regulations approved by Council. If all regulations held within the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy are met, the owner will receive their permit.


  • Process- This may be covered somewhere on the site. Can you explain the process from now until the first concrete is poured on the site for a new development? So, there will be a final design concept presented to a second public open house in the fall; then the next step, then the next step, and so on. Please give us the milestone steps, including all the public engagement opportunities, to be covered for the project.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your inquiry. The sequence of steps for the property’s disposition and development are:

    • First Open House (July)
    • Second Open House (Fall)
    • Recommendations/deliverables by Consulting Team to the municipality, which includes proposed MPS & LUB amendments in response to the direction for this property’s Economic Development disposal category (as per Administrative Order 50), and community input through the design phase (December)
    • Application Report For amendments submitted to Regional Council (Winter 2016
    1. This step will include consultants’ input and staffrecommendations as informed by public engagement
    2. This process also includes a recommendation on how the property is to be disposed-of (i.e., sold)
    3. The end of this process includes a Public Hearing, as required to approve a plan amendment

    • Upon approval by Regional Council, the property will be marketed for sale (~Summer 2016)
    • Upon sale of the property, the purchaser/developer will submit an application for development
    • Municipal staff would then review the development proposal/application to determine whether it meets requirements under the [revised] MPS and LUB


  • Does HALIFAX have any vision for the site in terms of what the city needs? Beyond the forms proposed in the three concepts - what about program / permitted use / desired use? It would seem that programming the site before design concept is complete makes more sense. What do we need? Let's take the example of a performing arts centre as you could argue that one is needed in Halifax - I suggest that none of the concepts address this need/use. This idea can be extrapolated well beyond a performing arts centre - since we don't have a sense of what is needed to heighten our mid-sized Canadian city. Is it intended as a major focal destination?

    Nathan Rogers asked about 4 years ago

    Regional Council approved Quinpool 6067 as a property surplus to ?municipal requirements as per Administrative Order 50 (AO50), respecting The Disposal of Surplus Real Property. The process that determines a municipally-owned property's surplus status under AO50, and approved by Regional Council, requires an internal review of business unit needs (municipal requirements), as well as any that Regional Council require or request be studied for future consideration. Such needs are typically informed by stakeholders, policy studies and scans, master plans, multi-year capital and business plans, and the annual capital budget cycle. In the case of this property, no municipal requirements for this site have been identified, and as such, the property was approved as surplus with the condition that a plan amendment process be done prior to disposal.


  • Question - does anyone else feel this process is an illusion of choice? We get to debate and pick apart 3 concepts clearly all done by the same artist and with the very same agenda on each. None of these scenarios seem to have affordable housing or will be priced for local businesses to move in. Why is this school not being renovated by & for the community?

    MelissaMnl asked about 4 years ago

    Regional Council has not approved the renovation of the building, due to its poor condition, including hazardous materials throughout. Significant costs would have been needed to renovate the building's systems (electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, insulation, roof, exterior, windows/doors, flooring...everything), and in the end, it would remain a 265,000 square foot (25,000 square metre) school characterized by wide, long hallways, centralized bathrooms, high ceilings. Sale of the property allows sales revenue to be reinvested in other public goods or amenities for the benefit of the community.

  • Planning Process: identify desired quality of life and production, which would maintain 100 yr. landscape? http://lufa.com/en/ http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/skys-the-limit-for-montreal-rooftop-greenhouse http://www.foodpolicymilano.org/en/urban-food-policy-pact-2/

    grakat asked about 4 years ago

    Thank-you for these links. Although the Milan Food Policy Pact in one of the links seems to be an issue for higher levels of government to consider, the rooftop commercial gardens are a rather interesting proposition. Some questions that immediately come to mind are:

    Is LUFA the sole capital investor who works with building owners to set-up the infrastructure atop and within a building?

    What are minimum criteria for a building and site required to make a commercial rooftop garden an economically sustainable entity?

    What incentives and risks are there for a building owner?

  • This is not a question, however I was encouraged to put this suggestion into the mix. I sent this to the Mayor in 2014 before the recent design plans, and feel the many uses of the land have not been considered. I am writing this letter to add my voice to those who are interested in developing the Quinpool Road - St. Pat's High School lot. I am enthusiastic about the possibilities for that site. Let me share my vision with you. Halifax could/should be the home of a state-of-the-art cultural hub that includes space for professional performances, community activities, gallery installations, and arts administration, situated in one area that is vibrant with creative activity and artistic enterprises. Imagine a space where one building houses a performance venue for small, intimate performances of music, theatre, and dance in a space that is built for maximum functionality to accommodate about 125 people. A larger performing venue for approximately 250 people would welcome small touring dance, theatrical, and musical companies and ensembles that could also cater to local dance school events. Such a building would also be home to studio space for artistic creation (dance, theatre, and music) as well as administrative offices for small local ensembles. Take a walk outside, or through an underground corridor to a second building that houses administrative offices of not-for profit organizations (many of whom lost their affordable space in the Roy Building in 2014). By creating a central hub, maintenance costs and other costs and infrastructure will be shared. Across the green space in the centre of this campus, (landscaped to attract residents from the surrounding area to eat, meet, and perhaps enjoy an outdoor event), there will be a building that is a home for the Atlantic Film Festival and Carbon Arc cinema where Haligonians will again be able to enjoy a repertory cinema theatre. Also on site will be musician's studios with state-of-the-art recording technology, located in close physical proximity to dance and theatre artists, thereby facilitating collaborations and interchanges between the exponents of different artistic media. There will also be studios of varying sizes and configurations available for use by students of music, teachers of dance, and community groups looking for affordable, artistic, creative space in HRM. Living space for visiting artists will be available on-site, facilitating artistic residencies, making it easier and more affordable to bring in guest artists from across the country, and the globe. I believe that it is important that the city step up to the plate and provide a tangible investment in the arts and culture sector – one that has for too many years been under-funded by the municipality. The world class artistic talent located in Halifax has helped build a dynamic profile for the city as a hotbed of creativity, however, it has done so largely in an investment vacuum. With a clean slate to work with, we will be able to attain world-class architectural and engineering standards. The entire location will be heated by geothermal green technology, and the buildings will be of the highest LEED Standard (Platinum). The initial financial input will ensure that the future costs and upkeep of all the facilities will be kept as low as possible. What a wonderful legacy for the city to champion such high architectural and building standards while encouraging a culturally diverse and creative citizenry, and all this as a critical component of a dynamic municipal economy! Although it is not a large component of my vision, depending on the size of the site and space available, affordable housing within the regulation height restrictions could be included in the plan to provide a revenue stream for the project and help amortize costs. It is a critical time in terms of developing facilities and venues in the centre of the city; many organizations are looking for new accommodation. These many initiatives could lead to competing cultural infrastructure priorities and donor fatigue. By placing a number of these in a central location with a connected footprint and shared facilities, we can answer the needs of a number of organizations, maximize the creative bang for the investment buck, while at the same time creating an exciting showpiece that can be enjoyed and utilized by the residents of HRM and visitors alike. Through partnering with energy efficiency initiatives, and developing a beautiful and inspiring collection of purpose-built facilities (that are desperately needed in the city) for a number of homeless not-for-profit organizations, council will be defining a vision, a clear statement apparent to visitors, tourists, businesses, developers, innovators, but most importantly to the citizens of the municipality, that they care about culture, that they see into the future, that they believe in the next generation, that they value environmental efficiency, that they are financially prudent, and they care about the cultural welfare of the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality.

    sheilagh asked about 4 years ago

    Thank-you for your comments.


  • OK, I'm pretty excited about this opportunity and these ideas. It shows that at some level at least we're all moving in the same direction and we all basically agree about what makes a neighbourhood great. It's interesting that we all experience places like Old Montreal, Old Quebec, Chester NS, Savannah Ga., many European towns and think... that's wonderful... but we can't seem to capture the aspects of it we like in modern development. Why is that? Why do we end up with monolithic blocks of wall and no place for life or living? I think it's about scale of ownership as much as it is about design. The new ideas presented seem to at least nod to the notion of what is good about traditional communities and the newer notion of pocket neighborhoods. http://pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html But how can any of this be real, or of real social and economic benefit unless the ownership is also conceived at a scale where regular people, not corporations, REITS and developers, using their own small capital can invest in and own in the community? If one development group undertakes this project it is no more than a disnified, corporate/government fake of what we all agree we want. Capital, ownership, diversification of risk and ideas, and accessible markets are crucial to our society and our real neighbourhood culture. Doing all this work in the community only to then allow a developer to build a sham facade of what we all want is not much better than the brutalist concrete walls of our past development mistakes. Will the city commit to creating small plot diverse holdings and rules against monopoly-style land speculation that has hurt our downtown so much so that small-scale owner/operators and regular people can invest in and build their own community where they can live, work, play and create?

    John Wesley Chisholm asked about 4 years ago

    Regional Council approved initiation of plan amendment that would support a mixed-use outcome on the site. The intent is to sell the property as a whole/at one time. This does not mean that a consortium could not bid to acquire it and then propose a phased development or alternatively, propose to subdivide it. Council ultimately will advise staff on how to proceed with disposal of the process when the project advances to that stage. Currently we are trying to ensure we get a design that is supported by the community so that policy can then be crafted to support the project.


  • Comment: We can no longer limit ourselves to greening or optimizing unsustainable systems; every day adaptation, disruption, ethics, and norms must beget meaning over consumption, ecological viability, and morally defensible peaceful world. ~ A. Wals

    grakat asked about 4 years ago

    Thank-you for your comment.


  • A key question concerns HRM Council decision arbitrarily to set density at 1000/acre. Does this target take into account the heightened density associated with proposals for neighbouring developments (Armco etc)? Does it include any consideration of the implications for traffic, parking on adjacent streets? In a nutshell, how can HRM proceed with any development proposal without considering the impact on the neighbouring communities, traffic flows and existing services without an overall plan for the Centre. This is Job One and I would like to ask why it has not been completed before entertaining grand new development plans?

    Oldhound asked about 4 years ago

    No population density target has been set for this site. Density is but one measure of a development proposal, rather than an urban design goal unto itself.

    In response to the questions/comments: "Does it include any consideration of the implications for traffic, parking on adjacent streets? In a nutshell, how can HRM proceed with any development proposal without considering the impact on the neighbouring communities, traffic flows and existing services without an overall plan for the Centre. This is Job One and I would like to ask why it has not been completed before entertaining grand new development plans?"

    Municipal traffic and transportation staff have done a preliminary review of the site for mixed use development. No major concerns have been identified, under the existing road network. A preliminary traffic impact statement or study will be generated as part of the consultants’ recommendations. In addition, as with all developments, a traffic analysis will be required at the time a development proposal is submitted for approval.

  • What maximum height is allowed on this site under the current Land Use By-law and Planning Strategy?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    Currently, 45 feet.

  • What is the total floor space of each of the alternatives?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    No precise recommendations have been made by the consultants, however, a rudimentary calculation based on approximate gross floor plate extracted from the concepts, and an assumption on the number of storeys per concept from the designs, provides a broad range between 30,000 and 40,000 square metres, but these approximations are subject to change.


  • What would be the likely residential density with each of the alternatives?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    The three design directions are not detailed enough to provide precise figures. Rudimentary calculations suggest population density around 250 persons per acre, but this may change. Furthermore, this could translate into a broad range of units, depending on the developer’s approach to unit size, mix, building design, real estate products, and approach to marketing.


  • Two maps in the Background Report show very incorrect population densities for the surrounding blocks. When will these be corrected?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    The maps on pages 25 and 43 have been corrected.


  • What is the maximum population density that would be allowed on this site if it were rezoned to high density residential?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    That is unknown at this time. Population density is but one of many factors that will be considered by Regional Council in its deliberation over proposed amendments to the municipal planning strategy. Generally speaking, however, the population density is likely to increase from its current level, if any of the three design directions (or a hybrid) are approved.


  • The Stantec report for the Regional Plan found that there was the capacity to add 34,161 multiple-unit dwellings to the Regional Centre without any rezoning or change in land-use regulation. The supply of permissions to build multi-unit dwellings greatly exceeds demand. In this situation, why is HRM proposing to increase the supply of multi-unit permissions even more by allowing multi-unit apartments on much of this site?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    The property is surplus to municipal requirements, and as such, the municipality will seek to divest of the property, and translate its value into other needed municipal requirements as determined by Regional Council. Generally speaking, private sector investors (single home owners as well as large property development corporations) can better weigh risks and opportunities inherent in the market.


  • The Stantec report for the Regional Plan also noted that “A critical issue in assigning units to the Regional Centre was the limited availability of sites for singles and semis.” Did you consider using this site to increase the availability of sites for singles and semis? Do you have an appraisal of the site if it were zoned for singles and semis, or townhouses?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    Regional Council approved initiation of plan amendment of the site to a mixed-use outcome. Although townhouses may be feasible under a mixed-use development, strictly limiting the site to singles and semis is not being investigated.


  • Wood-frame construction has advantages in terms of cost and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. What height would be permitted on the site under the Building Code for wood-frame construction?

    Yukon asked about 4 years ago

    If wood-frame construction were the only criterion, then the existing Building Code limits multi-unit residential structures to 4 storeys.


  • Shape: Thanks for this answer below. Is it the intention of Regional Council to sell the property as a single parcel? Has Regional Council been asked to consider sale of the property to multiple parties? I don’t recall seeing this option presented in earlier reports. Could you give Regional Council this option, with supporting advice on its pros and cons? I would think that this is a reasonable option for Council to consider at this time. As noted below, multiple proponents employing different design professionals could produce a variety of designs, all conforming to the approved design principles, in a somewhat competitive environment. This could produce a superior product to that done by one proponent. Thanks Subject: Response to your question on Shape Your City Halifax website Hi there, Thanks for taking the time to visit Shape Your City Halifax and asking us a question. You asked: 'Proponents - Is it possible that the property will be developed by multiple proponents? For instance, in the 'Grid' design alternative, there are a number of free standing buildings proposed. Could those sites be offered to multiple successful proponents? I can see where multiple proponents employing different design professionals could produce a variety of designs, all conforming to the approved design principles, in a somewhat competitive environment. This could produce a superior product to that done by one proponent.' Our response has now been posted on the site. Our response: ' Thanks for your inquiry. The property is intended to be sold as a single parcel, subject to Regional Council approval. ' Please let us know if you have any more questions or if anything needs to be clarified. Regards Halifax Regional Municipality

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    The intent is to sell the property as a whole/at one time. This does not mean that a consortium could not bid to acquire it and then propose a phased development or alternatively, propose to subdivide it.

  • Shape: Quingate Trees – As you note below, “Tree protection is always more easily managed when trees are on municipal property, namely in parks and along rights-of-way.”. Is another way of saying this the following?: “The trees on private land between Quingate Lane and the St. Pat’s site could be cut down tomorrow.”? If that is the case, is there an opportunity to recommend to Regional Council that this small strip of ‘landlocked’ land be acquired so that the trees can be protected? This may have been included in an earlier report but I did not see it. Thanks Subject: Response to your question on Shape Your City Halifax website Hi there, Thanks for taking the time to visit Shape Your City Halifax and asking us a question. You asked: 'Trees - On the three design directions, you do not show any tree symbols on the Quinpool Road frontage. Is this foreshadowing or do you intend to include the protection of those existing trees in all of the designs and the ultimate development criteria? On two of the three design directions, you show the trees adjacent to Quingate Place which, I believe, are all on private land. Again, do you intend to protect and preserve those trees (I see below that they were the reason for a greater setback on this side of the property)? However, the design does not appear to be setback further on this side. Please explain. Would it be easier to protect those trees if they were on City land? Is there any recommendation from WSP to acquire this land as part of their review?' Our response has now been posted on the site. Our response: ' Thank you for your inquiry. Each of the three design directions is intended to respect existing trees equally. Tree protection is always more easily managed when trees are on municipal property, namely in parks and along rights-of-way. ' Please let us know if you have any more questions or if anything needs to be clarified. Regards Halifax Regional Municipality

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    There is no intent to acquire the private Quingate parcel adjacent to Quinpool 6067’s along its western boundary. That is beyond the scope of this project and is not Regional Council’s direction. The previous answer (i.e., “Tree protection is always more easily managed [by the municipality] when trees are on municipal property, namely in parks and along rights-of-way”), is simply a statement of fact.


  • Shape: Thanks for your answer below. Is one of the possible options for the final decision on the development to be constructed on the site the one that you mention first. Might a MPS and LUB amendment be approved to give the authority to issue the final decision on the development to the Development Officer? Or, do you expect that the final decision on the development to be constructed on the site will be made by Council. And, if the development is enabled by a Land Use Bylaw amendment (i.e., forms based controls or a development agreement provision) might the final approval be made by Community Council? This assumes that the MPS amendment has been already approved by Regional Council. Thanks Subject: Response to your question on Shape Your City Halifax website Hi there, Thanks for taking the time to visit Shape Your City Halifax and asking us a question. You asked: 'Governance - Do we know who will be making the final decision on the development to be constructed on the site? Will it be Regional Council, Community Council, Design Review Committee (or similar body)?' Our response has now been posted on the site. Our response: ' Thanks for your inquiry. Development approval is based on standard Planning & Development approval processes: If a developer’s application meets all MPS and LUB requirements, then an as-of-right building permit is issued by the Development Officer. If a Discretionary Planning Application is submitted (either, because the application does not meet the approved MPS/LUB requirements, or the Developer wishes to amend the [already revised as per this process] MPS/LUB, or the MPS/LUB require a Discretionary Process), then Regional Council is the approving body. This site is outside the Downtown Halifax Plan Area where the Design Review Committee approves Site Plan Approval applications. ' Please let us know if you have any more questions or if anything needs to be clarified. Regards Halifax Regional Municipality

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    That is the intent, assuming a development proposal is submitted which meets the intent and regulations of the MPS and LUB. This does not preclude a land owner/developer from submitting a proposal outside the MPS/LUB seeking amendments.

    In reply to, "Or, do you expect that the final decision on the development to be constructed on the site will be made by Council...": This is certainly an option, but not the intended direction. However, we are not at the end of the project process, so our answer is not final.


  • Wind - On page 40 of the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015, it states: "It would not have any measurable impact on the wind conditions on the park to the east". Is the 'park' the North Commons or Cogswell Park?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    North Common.

    The recommended design direction (concept) will be reviewed for its wind effects on surrounding properties and Cogswell Park toward the end of the process. The preliminary observations in the Background Report are at a macro level. WSP (RWDI) will perform a more detailed wind analysis when the final concept is prepared.


  • Trees - Will the trees around the site be protected during the demolition? There does not appear to be fencing or similar in place now to protect them from root compaction, physical damage, etc.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    The tender specifications for the demolition included requirements for hoarding and root protection. HRM's urban forester has met with the contractor to ensure that trees will be protected during the demolition project. However, some trees will nevertheless be impacted, such as the conifers at the building's façade.

  • Not a question but rather a comment. The space could be used to create a seniors' complex with commercial space on the first floor as well a doctor's offices for those who are still mobile and independent and the hospital would be closer for care that is required beyond the family doctor. It should be a multi use complex for all stages of senior citizens (independent to complete care).l; They would be close to restraunts, shopping, and green space (The public gardens, the commons and gardening) and even be able to create a little garden if they choose. This would all be within walking distance for those who are able and even for those who need assistance. Most importantly in my opinion it would be located within an area that offers the amenities without a lot of driving for the senior.

    canedagal asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your comments. Please include these comments at the end of the survey on the Quinpool 6067 project page. Understand that we are currently looking at a high level design of the overall space, but there will be further opportunities to look at options, like the one you describe, later in the process.

  • Suggestion: Quinpool area would be an excellent place for a Farmer's Market. The Seaport Market has failed because it is too far away for an easy trip and because there is no parking. At least a satellite market would be fab in the new St. Pat's premises.

    Cheri Wilson asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your comments. That is quite an idea, so please keep that in mind as plans move forward.

  • Wind tunnels are a problem in the downtown core. I hope the reduction of this would be considered in the final design. I've read about the efforts architects in Sweden make to prevent/reduce wind tunnels in their core city areas. It makes the city more vibrant, useable and pleasant even in the long, cold winter periods.

    Linda v asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your comments. Please include these comments in your survey responses.

  • While it needs more thinking out, I like the idea of a new street to access the shops (Canadian Tire, etc). Current vehicle access to these stores is poor and previous street closures places significant traffic pressures on residental steets, such as Allen, and Monestry Lane). Note that this new shopping access can be done without diverting existing traffic flow from Winsor to Quninpool-it just needs more thinking out.

    carl m asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your comments. Please include this in the comments on the survey to ensure it is captured.

  • The conceptual drawings don't seem to provide any indication of the dimensions of the buildings. Since this has an important impact on their desirabiliity and suitability, it is impossible to comment on the options without having that information. Does HRM plan to update the website and provide that information? Irealize that the drawings only represent potential massings, but those massings would be based on assumed height, so you should be able to provide that information.

    Concordia asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your inquiry. Absolute maximum heights for the site will be proposed as part of the final proposal. The height of individual buildings in the concepts presented is strictly representative of the massing and form proposed in the three different design directions for the site. While the relative height of buildings within each site design is important, the absolute height is not part of the design discussion at this stage. However, the images do provide a visual indication of floors within structures, so height can be loosely interpreted based on the assumption that a building storey is typically 10-12 feet, depending on building style.


  • Just completed the survey - a few comments: These questions fail identify if 10 is good or bad. Probably want to fix this. Also, it makes a lot of assumptions. For example, you are assuming that people want to capture the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Maybe they want this development to be a noticeable exception - also a common and accepted design principle. In this way, the majority of questions are leading questions, the language used is not appropriate for public consultation, and far too many assumptions made.

    xyz asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your inquiry. The survey questions(i.e., regarding six design principles and their applicability to three design directions) are intended to facilitate discussion. They are not intended to be overly specific; rather, they are purposely left broad in scope. Interpretation and opinion is intended for the public to inform the consulting team. The online survey is modelled after the public open house.

  • Proponents - Is it possible that the property will be developed by multiple proponents? For instance, in the 'Grid' design alternative, there are a number of free standing buildings proposed. Could those sites be offered to multiple successful proponents? I can see where multiple proponents employing different design professionals could produce a variety of designs, all conforming to the approved design principles, in a somewhat competitive environment. This could produce a superior product to that done by one proponent.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your inquiry. The property is intended to be sold as a single parcel, subject to Regional Council approval.


  • Trees - On the three design directions, you do not show any tree symbols on the Quinpool Road frontage. Is this foreshadowing or do you intend to include the protection of those existing trees in all of the designs and the ultimate development criteria? On two of the three design directions, you show the trees adjacent to Quingate Place which, I believe, are all on private land. Again, do you intend to protect and preserve those trees (I see below that they were the reason for a greater setback on this side of the property)? However, the design does not appear to be setback further on this side. Please explain. Would it be easier to protect those trees if they were on City land? Is there any recommendation from WSP to acquire this land as part of their review?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. Each of the three design directions is intended to respect existing trees equally. Tree protection is always more easily managed when trees are on municipal property, namely in parks and along rights-of-way.


  • Governance - Do we know who will be making the final decision on the development to be constructed on the site? Will it be Regional Council, Community Council, Design Review Committee (or similar body)?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your inquiry. Development approval is based on standard Planning & Development approval processes: If a developer’s application meets all MPS and LUB requirements, then an as-of-right building permit is issued by the Development Officer. If a Discretionary Planning Application is submitted (either, because the application does not meet the approved MPS/LUB requirements, or the Developer wishes to amend the [already revised as per this process] MPS/LUB, or the MPS/LUB require a Discretionary Process), then Regional Council is the approving body. This site is outside the Downtown Halifax Plan Area where the Design Review Committee approves Site Plan Approval applications.


  • Survey - I'm having some challenges completing the survey. Specifically, I'm having difficulty scoring each of the design options on Human Scale, Variety of Real Estate, Neighbourhood Character and Creativity in Design. With the design drawings at their current level of detail, I don't have enough information to score against those criteria. For instance, each building form appears to meet the ground in the same way making an assessment of human scale a wash. Land use is not indicated which makes it impossible to assess variety of real estate. And, the block building forms of each set of sketches equally permit creativity in design. Was there other information at the Open House which if made available may assist in completing the survey? Can you provide additional guidance?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. We understand thatit may be a challenge to assess preliminary designs without detail. However, assessing the benefit of early concepts against criteria is, we feel, informative in opening our design process to the public. There was no further printed information provided to participants at the open house, but there was conversation with staff and consultants present. Interpretation and assumptions were both discussed and written down by participants. If you would like to discuss the design directions with someone from the design team, please follow-up with the project manager via email: vodickr@halifax.ca (Please include the following in the email’s subject line: Shape Your City - Quinpool 6067 – Public Comment).


  • What is the density target for the site that the concepts are based on? The background report indicated the consultants were using 250 persons/acre “as a starting point.”

    Concordia asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. The consultants did not begin with a density assumption or target. Rather, the three design directions (concepts) were developed from several other conceptual design ideas after considering the site’s context (neighbourhoods), municipal goals, and design principles. From there, the three design directions were chosen and recommended by the consulting architects/urban designers as being the most differentiated among all. Initially, the three design directions had somewhat varied densities that were calculated after massing was complete. One design direction had somewhat higher density, another had somewhat lower density, and through a design charrette among a team of consulting and municipal planners, urban designers, real estate professionals, and architects, the team agreed on the middle density of 250 persons per acre.


  • The report outlines the supremely ridiculous idea of turning the DRIVEWAY leading into and out of Quinpool Centre into a 'formal street', and forcing all traffic at the end of Windsor Street (from the end of the property at St. Vincent's Guest Home) to go up to Quingate Place to access Quinpool Road. In a question regarding 'back of house functions', already submitted on this site, you state, "Given the size of the property, back of house functions can be supported for individual buildings in a variety of ways that will be considered in the final design concept. We are not at this stage of the design yet.". Without being able to magically create more land/space in the driveway leading into and out of Quinpool Centre, exactly how do you plan on addressing the issue of 18 wheeler trucks making deliveries to both Shopper's Drug Mart, the Superstore and Canadian Tire? 18 wheeler delivery trucks very often block driveway access into Quinpool Centre when they are maneuvering into place - which, depending on the size of the truck and proficiency of the driver - can take anywhere from one attempt to six or seven attempts to line up and back into the loading bay at Quinpool Tower at one end of the driveway, and at Canadian Tire at the other end of the driveway. They then can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 45 minutes to offload their delivery - all the while cutting off at least one if not both lanes of the driveways leading into Quinpool Centre. There is no other area for this task to be done; there just isn't. As a resident of this area, I can tell you that trucks can and do arrive at all times of the day, evening, early morning - or is your solution to bar deliveries until the overnight hours? Not exactly something residents of Quingate Place, Quinpool Towers or Quinpool Courts would welcome as it can be very noisy when trucks are making their deliveries. For example, refrigerated trucks must leave their engines running while offloading their deliveries. So exactly where do you propose these trucks go to offload their deliveries? These trucks use the area at the corner of the driveway next to St. Pat's to maneuver into position to back into the loading bay area of Quinpool Towers, or to wait for their turn if a truck is already in the loading bay when they arrive. This would certainly be difficult to do (to say the least) if the traffic from Windsor Street was forced to use Quingate Place in order to access Quinpool Road. This does not even take into consideration 'back of house functions' for whatever development is built on the St. Pat's site. The new building will also need access somewhere for it's own 'back of house functions' such as garbage collection, as well as access to Windsor Street and / or Quingate Place which will increase traffic all around the area. Also proposed is adding two 'kiosk' type business-related buildings to the parking lot of Quinpool Centre. This would eat up a significant number of parking spaces in the Quinpool Centre lot. Is this why you/the city are proposing to cut off access to the end of Windsor Street from St. Pats to Quinpool Road so the city can install parking meters there for revenue? Why are you/the City making such ridiculous suggestions that do not benefit whatsoever the people who actually live in the area but only put money in the pockets of the city and developers? Also, how much was WSP paid for this report? What group within the municipal government commissioned this report?

    Karen Davison asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. We can answer some of the questions you pose above in two phases:

    With regard to the Windsor/Quinpool intersection, the intent of the discussion of the this intersection is to focus on improvements that will assist pedestrians in moving around the site, it is not intended to divert traffic away from this intersection. Further, any consideration of new streets related to this project will be reviewed by the consulting design team as well as internal Traffic Management Services staff before final recommendations. Public input on these ideas is valuable at this time.

    With regard to the involvement of WSP, Regional Council approved (‘commissioned’) the initiation of the plan amendment process in July 2014. WSP’s Background Report is only one of several deliverables in this project, and part of a broader contract, which was won by WSP (among six proposals) in response to a publicly advertised Request For Proposals (RFP) process in early 2015. The contract price was $83,000 plus HST.

  • Stepbacks - On page 44 of the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015, there is a reference to the shape of surrounding buildings. "The buildings located in and around the intersection of Robie Street and Quinpool Road are larger in scale, the largest being 18 storeys high. Atlantica Hotel and Quingate Tower are at 14 storey heights. Given the age of these buildings, there is no noticeable setback and stepbacks to help mitigate the height of the buildings along the street.". Would you not consider that the Atlantica Hotel has a significant stepback above the second floor to help mitigate its height along the street? When I pass by the Atlantica Hotel on Quinpool Road, it always 'reads' to me like a 2 storey building at the streetwall, not a 14 storey building. Unfortunately, that stepback does not resolve the somewhat brutal treatment of the ground level.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Agreed. Along Quinpool Road and rounding the corner, the Atlantica Hotel has a 2+ storey streetwall, until Robie Street where the corrugated concrete section of the hotel rises from sidewalk to roofline. It is important for all projects of this size and scale to consider Human Scale. This is the reason one of the main design principles for Quinpool 6067 is Human Scale.


  • Quinpool road traffic is currently a mess- sounds like this development could add lot of problems if folks are permitted to turn left across traffic into any underground parking. Any underground parking entry exist should be deep in the back of the road shared by canadian tire/super store. In general terms quinpools traffic patterns are horrendous - two many opportunities for cars to turn left at locations other then lights, cutting off and holding up traffic, too many folks illegally paring on roads in morning and evening- lack of robust ticketing and towing practices. I feel that quinpool should be established with a revising lane and bike lanes- and at any time of the day parking on only one side of the road with no left turns permitted. During morning up till 11am two lanes in, one out and parking only on north side of street- after 11am it reverse to two lanes out, one in and parking only on south side. The lights near Macdonalds should be removed, as well as near the church and the health food store- what purpose do they serve- folks need to start to think of quinpool as a turn right type of street when approaching it from side streets. The access to the street shared by TD and Canadian Tire should be terminated past the end of the back parking lot or a barrier put up in the middle of the road to prevent left hand turns at that point.

    maurice asked about 4 years ago

    Municipal traffic engineers will be the recipients of comments such as these. Although your suggestions for other parts of Quinpool Road may be noteworthy, this project is specific to the Quinpool 6067 site and how future development may have impacts on surrounding streets. Effects from development of the site will be further studied to inform how the site should be designed.

  • Have a look at this website . . .. http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/benefits_of_trees.pdf and I ask why would the City of Halifax consider anything but using the entire St. Pat's property for an Urban Forest Site? The economic, social and cultural advantages are overwhelming positive. Planting a few trees, is not the same. We don't need more paved 'safe' playgrounds, or malls, or coffee shops, or take-out restaurants . . . . why can't the City of Halifax do something really exciting and innovative and put ourselves on the map. We were one of the first municipalities to bring in recycling, so lets be brave and do something new and creative and forward thinking again.

    Chips asked about 4 years ago

    We are not considering a urban forest here due to the decision by Regional Council to declare the site at 6067 Quinpool Road as surplus land under Administrative Order 50 started the plan amendment process. Under Administrative Order 50, a surplus property can be classified into one of six categories and in this case, it was recommended to declare it as an economic development opportunity for the area and the city. Halifax Regional Council approved that recommendation and the process to design, market and ultimately sell the property began. We do agree however that trees provide quantifiable contributions, socially, sustainably, economically, ecologically, etc. The municipality’s Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) promotes tree retention and new plantings to increase canopy cover in urban areas. The canopy cover in along the Quinpool Road corridor is approximately 7% with the goal of 20% as set by the UFMP. Tree retention and new planting opportunities will be part of development design.


  • Quingate setback - In the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015, it states: "Overlaying key shots of the shadow analysis on the site indicates that the Quingate Place frontage is the darkest area of the site. It is also the area of the site with an existing row of mature trees. It is therefore recommended that future development at the site be located with a setback from Quingate Place. Other smaller setbacks are recommended along the other three frontages." I'm not sure that I follow the logic here. It would appear that any new building will need to be setback to the extent of the tree canopy, assuming that the trees are to be retained. Does the report, or an addendum to it, recommend retention of these trees? Back to the recommended setback. I don't see the logic in recommending an increased setback here because of shadow from Quinpool Tower. Would a stepback on this frontage even make any sense? It may increase natural light penetration to the Quingate trees during the morning hours. Could we have the rationale explained for this recommendation?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    In deference to the Urban Forest Master Plan we have assumed that peripheral trees on or near the property boundary may be an asset to be protected or retained by the municipality. A setback or stepback would not only benefit existing trees, but would improve the pedestrian experience along Quingate Place.


  • Quinpool Road frontage - The 6067 Quinpool Road, Halifax Admin. Order No. 50 report dated July 22, 2014 includes the following statement: "Portions of the existing sidewalk along Quinpool Road had been constructed on the property, and not within the street right-of-way. It will be necessary to redraw the property’s boundaries before recommended disposal in order to retain ownership of existing sidewalks within HRM’s rights-ofway. This will also permit necessary road and sidewalk realignments along Quinpool Road, and at intersections with Quingate Place and Windsor Street if required, pending property survey." The Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 appears to be silent on this matter. Is there an opportunity here to consider whether the portion of the Quinpool Road sidewalk that is now on the street side of the existing trees be moved to the other side of the trees to provide protection and canopy and enhance the pedestrian environment?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Moving the sidewalk to the north of the existing trees, as described, may be considered when this section deteriorates to the point of requiring replacement. This may also be a consideration if this section of Quinpool Road requires realignment. No such plans are currently being considered, but future development of Quinpool 6067 may further inform such possibilities, subject to the annual capital budget process.

  • Land Ownership - The Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 makes reference to the privately held lands between Quingate Place and the subject site on page 14: "There is a wide sidewalk that runs along the east side of the street [Quingate] adjacent to the site which is partially located on private property." Is there a plan to acquire this 30' +/- wide parcel and include it in the site prior to the site being marketed for disposal?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    At this time, there is no policy direction from Regional Council to acquire the parcel on the east side of Quingate Place, bordering the west side of the site.

  • Gymnasium / Art Venues - Curious, why are these combined in the legend on page 21 of the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    The report is showing the location of other performance and recreation facilities in the area, these are grouped due to the fact that some venues serve both purposes.


  • This area has many highrise developments being proposed -isn't their approval and the approval for a St Pat's project in advance of the Centre Plan precluding what the Centre Plan will be able to do? Why doesn't the city land bank the St Pat's site as common land to compensate for the loss of over 200 acres of the Halifax Common's public open space ? As was stated in an article in the Chronicle Herald June 22 2015: "Now, after a 21-year wait, this year’s municipal budget included money to begin the planning process. Time is not on the Common’s side. Developers are unjustifiably making extensive use of the development agreement application process to ignore the regional plan’s existing controls that regulate size, mass, height and setback of buildings. By approving such agreements for out-of-scale buildings, the mayor and council are allowing developers to preclude not just the Halifax Common Master Plan process, but also the Centre Plan and the Halifax Green Network processes. The trend for developers to occupy public blue space next to public green space such as the Halifax Common, its parks, graveyards or gardens — each with unparalleled, exclusive or sought-after views — is clear. Present proposals for 25-, 28-, 18-, 11- and 24-storey buildings are adjacent to the Halifax Common. And an 18-storey building approved next to Camp Hill Cemetery on Carleton Street and a 30-storey building proposed for Spring Garden Road at Carleton are on Halifax Common land."

    KC asked about 4 years ago

    At this time and in this phase of the process, the Municipality is strictly looking at design directions for the site and not specific buildings or heights. Upon recommendation of a design concept, approval of any potential Municipal Planning Strategy or Land Use By-Law amendments, and the sale of the site, the owner will submit a proposal for specific buildings and heights to HRM and Halifax Regional Council will be able to consider it, however at this point we are too early in the process. Furthermore:

    · Existing planning policy for the surrounding neighbourhoods is not envisioned as being subject to a wholesale overhaul during the Centre Plan process; that is to say, future policy for R1 and R2 zones is expected to be largely congruent with current Municipal Planning Strategy direction;

    · Directions on design will pull from past work with additional input based on the public response and policy work done since that time in the area and on this project; and,

    · Planning staff who are embedded in the Centre Plan process are part of the consultant management team (steering committee) for the Quinpool 6067 project and information is flowing between both projects throughout the process.


  • can we ensure we have very wide gracefull sidewalks as frontage so that any retail opportunities have room for outdoor tables without having hideous infilling and congestions of outdoor eating areas like other parts of Quinpool Rd- should be starting with 3at least foot sidewalks in particular if you are going up 18 floors.

    maurice asked about 4 years ago

    Enhancing pedestrian experience is one of the most important goals of this project and the Design Principles are defined to achieve this important goal. The width of sidewalks and active transportation routes are determined by a variety of factors such as volume of pedestrian traffic, adjoining needs and uses, safety, special district policies (e.g., Halifax Common), and multi-modal use. Opportunities in this case may also arise on the site depending on the site’s proposed development and uses.

  • Access to Public Open Space - The Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 states on page 28: "There is easy access to large open and public spaces such as the Commons". I'm curious on how the Report is defining 'easy' as it further states on page 30 that: "The intersection of Windsor and Quinpool requires rethinking to allow for a better pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic flow.". I'd assume that one destination for this flow would be to the Commons. Further, on page 38, the Report continues: "The site has easy access to public open spaces that are located around the site. ... An overview of the Open Spaces map indicates that the site program may consider providing easy pedestrian access to open spaces through the site.". Would it be fair to interpret from these statements that the site is 'near' to public open spaces but, pedestrian (and perhaps other modes too) access to them can be improved? And could this interpretation lead to thoughts about improvements to the Windsor / Quinpool (as on page 56 of the Report) and Willow Tree intersections to make them more safe and convenient for people walking? On the face of it, the Windsor / Quinpool intersection pedestrian accessibility issues pale in comparison to that of the Willow Tree.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    WSP acknowledges that improvements to human mobility around and through the Quinpool 6067 site, to and from destinations beyond, is desirable. Any improvements in public safety are welcome. Presumably, improving the urban fabric and mobility in this area will help make the site more desirable as a destination.

  • Windsor & Quinpool - It's great to read your recommendation about the intersection of Windsor & Quinpool. The Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 states: "The intersection of Windsor and Quinpool requires rethinking to allow for a better pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic flow.". This is likely a reference to the 2009 public consultation following the release of the 2004 Urban Design Project report which identified several streetscape improvement plan areas, including a pedestrian crossing of Quinpool Road between intersections at Vernon Street/Quingate Place and Robie Street. Is that correct? And, it also foreshadows the recommendation to reduce the crossing width of Windsor Street as shown on page 56 of the Background Report. Are either Windsor Street or Quinpool Road truck routes? If one or both are, that may be a factor in the input from Halifax staff about changing the corner radii and 'bumping out' the curb. And, I assume that if the crossing distance is reduced, the small refuge island can be removed too, and the crossing width can be further reduced.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Any design improvements and capital realignments to existing public rights of way (i.e., streets, sidewalks, intersections) around the site will require further technical evaluation by municipal staff, not to mention required work plan approvals through the annual capital budget process. In support of such reviews, previous studies are consulted. Although WSP recommends such improvements, they may not be required of the developer of the site.

  • What about having a Arts centre with a opera theatre?

    W B asked about 4 years ago

    Although a new arts centre or opera theatre may be desirable venues for the city at some point in time, Regional Council has not identified this site as the location for such uses.

  • Data - It's great that you've obtained data on shopping patterns, mixed use development preference, local resident access to nearby institutions, popularity by various mobility modes, and popularity of certain pedestrian routes to inform the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015. Could you please tell us the quantitative or qualitative data source(s) that were used to support the following statements from the Report? Page 23 - ...nearby residents make up a large portion of the people using the services and amenities of Quinpool Road and Windsor Street. Page 23 - This [need for a large scale and well designed, mixed use development at the site that will respect and add to the existing character of the neighbourhood] is supported by the strong appetite and great success of mixed use developments in and around the Peninsula. Page 29 - These sites [Halifax Infirmary and Dalhousie University] are well connected to the site and as such many of the residents in the neighbourhood are those accessing these locations on a routine basis. Page 30 - Overall, the site is accessible and popular for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers. Page 30 - Quinpool Road, Windsor Street and most other local streets in the area are popular for pedestrians. The site has a walk score of 89% (walkscore.com). Popular pedestrians routes identified include the space behind the site used to access Cogswell Park and the Commons. Another popular route for pedestrians are the local roads that connect Quinpool Road to Dalhousie University

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. Many of the sources are from existing research, studies, and legislative documents. This includes HRM Request for Proposal, Administrative Order 50, Gymnasia Analysis, HRM Regional Plan, Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-Law, Parking Roadmap, Environmental Site Assessment Report, Urban Forest Master, Quinpool Road Corridor Study, and Quinpool Road Streetscape Report.

  • Wind - Could you please add, or provide, a wind rose legend to make the diagrams on page 41 of the Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 easier to understand?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your comment. We will add the legend to the report.


  • Dimensions: Can you point me to the section in the Quinpool 6067 Background Report where it tells us the size of the property and the length of its street frontages?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. A site plan is now part to the Shape Your City portal. The size of the lot is 3.47 acres, and approximate frontages are: Quinpool Rd. (410’), Windsor St. (500’), Quingate Pl. (390‘), and north boundary (280‘).

  • Walking - The Quinpool 6067 Background Report July 2015 could be made more complete by reference to Making Connections, Halifax's Active Transportation Plan. The Plan references specific characteristics which improve the walking environment (e.g. streetscaping). These factors are also echoed in the May 22, 2014 submission from the Quinpool Road Mainstreet District Association which states: "Requesting additional civic space and streetscape improvements may seem extravagant to any development, but considering size and scope of the project, these items can be justified by the potential of increased density on the site in the form of well-designed height and lot coverage." Making Connections identifies the following actions to improve walkability. Could these be included in the design principles and guidelines for the site? ? A buffer of landscaping and/ or parked cars between pedestrians on the sidewalk and the street; ? An improved sidewalk environment with more trees and amenities, better lighting, and special pavements. ? Façade transparency: i.e. larger windows at ground level versus solid walls or fences; ? Appropriate scale: walkability increases when there is a good ratio between building height and street width (i.e. neither a ‘canyon’ nor a ‘ prairie’); ? Active street frontages: Certain types of commercial uses at street level help create walkable environments (e.g. retail, restaurants versus industrial or automotive uses)

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. As you have identified, walkability, human scale, and quality of open spaces are important design principles for this site and have been considered in the concept design development.

    We invite you to attend the public meeting and provide your feedback on the concept designs to further advance the design.

  • The Background Report suggests a new street be established thereby creating four frontages on the property. Has any consideration been given to 'back-of-house' space needed for loading, deliveries, waste receptacle, etc.? With four frontages - one or more of the frontages would be needed for back-of-house needs.

    Nathan Rogers asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. As stated in the report, the goal of the new street is to formalize the existing pedestrian path and the new Active Transportation connector behind the subject property. Given the size of the property, back of house functions can be supported for individual buildings in a variety of ways that will be considered in the final design concept. We are not at this stage of the design yet.

  • Trees - Considering the fact that the site is well treed on 3 sides and the city is making great strides with its Urban Forest Master Plan, I believe that the report should contain references to both. Perhaps the Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.halifax.ca/property/UFMP/documents/SecondEditionHRMUFMP.pdf) can add some guidance to the report's recommendations about the treatment of the perimeter trees as this planning exercise goes forward. The information should be easy to obtain.

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. The consultants have reviewed the Urban Forest Master Plan and intend to use recommendations in the report when preparing final recommendations for the site. It will influence final recommendations as will all other existing Functional Plans that include the area in their scope.

  • Density: What does the statement on page 25 of the Quinpool 6067 Background Report (July 2015) mean when it states: "The density of new developments are at or above 250 persons per acre." What's the relevance of the reference to Schedule A on page 43 of the report? The subject site is outside of Schedule A, correct, as shown on ZM-2 (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/Halifax_ZM2_Schedules.pdf)?

    wdc asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. 250 persons per acre is a reference density that has been proposed in various planning applications in nearby areas. The measure is a site density measure, not an average density over a neighbourhood area. For example, a 25-unit building on a quarter-acre site would have a site density of roughly 250 persons per acre.

    The reference to Schedule A is to inform the consultants and municipal staff with respect to the context in the nearby area. The boundary of Schedule A is Robie Street.


  • What was on the lot prior to the school?

    Chrisjlachner asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. Saint Mary’s College was relocated to this site in 1903. A dormitory was added to the site in 1906 (Saint Mary’s University Archives). Saint Patrick’s Boys’ High moved from their Brunswick Street location to this site in 1951 (The History of Saint Patrick’s Schools, by Bernard Hum).

  • I am concerned that local traffic will be blocked on Quingate Place for residents of 2080 & 2070. Will contractors be advised to not block the entrance to this street at anytime? This street is the only access to our residence. There are 97 units at this condo corporation. Will there be an emergency contact number if access is blocked? There is no parking for vehicles close by so we have to be able to access our residences 24/7.

    Sue Horne asked about 4 years ago

    Thanks for your questions. We will answer this in two parts as we will break out the piece about emergency numbers. To answer your questions:

    Will contractors be advised to not block the entrance to Quingate Place?

    Municipal staff do not anticipate any street closures, but if any are required for construction or demolition, they will be minimized and sufficient control measures will be put in place to permit access to private property. Any applications to the city by contractors for temporary street closures during demolition or construction must be accompanied by an access / egress plan for residents.

    Will there be an emergency contact number if access Quingate Place, or any other street or property, is blocked during construction?

    Any and all emergencies should be reported to 911 immediately. Any other matter can be referred to the HRM 311 Call Centre for further response.


  • Could you share the three proposed designs before the consultation? This would allow residents time to digest, reflect, and offer insightful thoughts.

    Adam Hayter asked about 4 years ago

    Thank you for your inquiry. The three proposals for 6067 Quinpool will be released at the open house on July 22 and residents who attend that meeting are invited to make comments and provide feedback. The next day, the proposals will be released on this Shape Your City Halifax page and residents can provide feedback for up to three weeks.

    So, if you attend the open house, but still want to review the proposals and make additional comments, you can do that here on Shape Your City.

    Hope that helps.