[someone123]

This is the second phase of the Halkirk proposal for the Keith's brewery lands (Southern end). Phase I was Salter's Gate, which has now been completed.

This is the second incarnation of this proposal. The first was a 27 storey tower that was rejected by the HRM PCC.

HRM report West elevation (along Lower Water Street):

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/81624973/original.jpg

[phrenic]

I sense Phil Pacey is will get his noise out of joint over this one as well. To close to the Lt. Governor's residence.

Hopefully after the UG fiasco things will go a bit more smoothly.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Proximity should not be the issue, but quality should, as alot of crap has gone up in that area. However,I do like The Waterford or whatever its called a bit farther down.

[terrynorthend]

I love the look of this proposal. It has a great eastern elevation and the tower complements and balances Salter's Gate at its the north end. It reminds me of some of the old skyscrapers in Manhattan, like those around Central Park.

As for the the Lt. Govs. residence, nothing can be closer and uglier than Maritime Centre- It's right next to it. The Halkirk is a beautiful complement to Goverment House.

[someone123]

I like the massing of the tower. Not sure what the cladding materials would be, but they'll probably be the same as Salter's Gate.

The tower provides a good transition between 20+ storey office buildings and the shorter ~8 storey residential buildings to the South. The tower itself is also set back from both Hollis and Lower Water Street, and on either side will have buildings at street level that are perfectly in keeping with the scale of the area.

There was a colour rendering in one of the papers but I didn't save it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Keith Hall looked like shit the last time I was in Halifax. Hopefully this thing can resolve itself. I think the tower does indeed help scale the taller buildings... in the way the Dominion Public Building does.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I like the tower, but I don't like the street level component.

The thing that worries me about this project is that it's Halkirk and they built the unfortunate mess of concrete at the other side of the Brewery lands. I don't see why this project would be any better designed than Salter's Gate.

After UG I think this one has a good shot. Let's hope they can get the first couple of floors right because I like the tower.

[hfx_chris]

I think the tower does indeed help scale the taller buildings... in the way the Dominion Public Building does.
You like the Dominion Public Building don't you?
I'm working there right now, and I have to agree with you, it's an amazing building.

[worldlyhaligonian]

yeah, it sits well in the skyline and shows age and quality unlike some of the additions from other eras, although purdy's and 1801 are beautiful. I love how the Royal York fits into the skyline of Toronto and this project feels like that to me (if UG is in place as well)
http://images.travelnow.com/hotelimages/s/008000/008828A.jpg
http://www.erudit.org/livre/lachapellej/2001/l1d7_img63n.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

Toronto is obviously much more dense and tall...

[keninhalifax]

I changed my mind.

I'm somewhat torn about this proposal -- I on the one hand think that any 19-storey building on this site would be out of context with the buildings near Bishop, Hollis, and Lower Water Streets. On the other hand, if street-level frontages were properly massed and manicured, the building could provide an interesting contrast and diversify the currently bland streetscape on that bit of Lower Water.

Whatever the case, I find it a touch sad that this project is feasible only because it lies within the viewplane 'shadow' of the Maritime Centre.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I changed my mind.
Whatever the case, I find it a touch sad that this project is feasible only because it lies within the viewplane 'shadow' of the Maritime Centre.

If we're going to move forward in Halifax we definetly have to ditch the viewplanes IMO. It is kind of ludicrous to pop tall buildings in somewhere just because they aren't covered by a viewplane. Unfortunately at this point that's all HRMbyDesign is proposing which is far from ideal and I don't think it's good planning nor will it solve the problems we see in this city with appeals and such.

This project's height I don't have a large problem with. It's the street level I'm really worried about. Halkirk did a TERRIBLE job on the north side of the brewery lands. I'm not optomistic about this project.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Anyone know how this project may be progressing?

[Haliguy]

I think it should be coming before council soon for approval.

[someone123]

I wandered by this area today and the old Longshoremen's Association building is gone, removing one hurdle for phase III of the project.

No idea when the final hearing for the tower (before the appeal to the URB...) will be held.

[Jonovision]

I found this rendering today.

http://www.davidharrison.ca/images/Rendering_Bishop_Metro_09-06-07_LD62OKL.jpg

[someone123]

I hope we hear something about this development soon. I really hate the current empty lot, which is in its own way heavily "out of context" given all the nearby construction and renovations in recent years. One block up is the recently restored Government House, one of the nicest heritage buildings in the entire country, and below it is tiered gravel parking with old bits of crumbled concrete and a large gas tank.

Keith Hall is also in dire need of restoration and that would be coupled with this development. Another component, Halkirk House, would further add to the Hollis streetscape. After the tower I believe another phase of development is planned for the Longshoremen lot.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Maritime Centre is nearby. Right now there's no "transition" between the 21 storey office building and 4-8 storey residential to the South. A 19 storey condo tower would fit somewhere in between.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I don't like the street level on that rendering. The arcades which were built at Salter's Gate are quite poorly done and now they are planning to make the same mistake at the south end of the property.

[Spitfire75]

I agree about the ground level, but other than that I really like it and think it would like great in that area.

[someone123]

I don't like the street level on that rendering. The arcades which were built at Salter's Gate are quite poorly done and now they are planning to make the same mistake at the south end of the property.

Here's a picture I took of Salter's Gate:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/82173502/original.jpg

It's probably safe to say that the exterior materials will be similar. I'd prefer something else, but to be honest I don't think they necessarily look that bad.

When it comes to the arcades specifically I think the biggest problem is simply how they relate to the sidewalk. The ones on Hollis are set several feet below and don't feel very accessible. They interfere with the line of site to what should be bright storefronts and display windows. The Salter Street side is similar, and the glass tops are ugly.

The rendering makes it look like the Lower Water Street arcading will be at street level, which solves one problem of Salter's Gate. Similarly, the side arcades are not stepped as with Salter's Gate but are brought up to a balcony level above. I'm not a huge fan of that design either but it looks a little better.

The curved corner entry seems pretty attractive to me, and I like the rounded entrance to Salter's Gate. I dislike the fenestration on Salter's Gate but that also seems a bit better in the tower rendering.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the detailing in the rendering is totally different from what will be in the final design.

[Empire]

Salter's Gate fails in many ways:
- the ceilings are too low (direct result of view planes)
- the lobby is too bland
- the artifact display completely misses the mark ( should have been a grand theme)
- the exterior cladding is a sandstone wannabee
- the arcade on Hollis is a waste of very limited pedestrian space
- the copper dome is 46.3% too small
- however the fieldstone on the commercial building and in the landscaping on Lower Water just makes the grade

[someone123]

Yeah, the low ceilings are another irksome feature of this development that I've mentioned before.

Hopefully that will be fixed by HRM by Design - ground floors should have to be a little taller than the requirement for upper floors and there should be storefronts, windows, or something interesting at ground level.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Yeah, the low ceilings are another irksome feature of this development that I've mentioned before.

Hopefully that will be fixed by HRM by Design - ground floors should have to be a little taller than the requirement for upper floors and there should be storefronts, windows, or something interesting at ground level.

Unfortunately they are keeping the view planes intact, which means they can only do so much to improve ground floors.

I mean if you're a developer with 67.5632298 feet of height under the viewplanes than you can't afford to make the ground floor 4 feet taller without chopping off a floor of your building. Why not just give them 7 floors, and let them decide what height each floor is? So what if they building is 77 feet tall instead of 67?

[someone456]

Salter's Gate fails in many ways:
- the ceilings are too low (direct result of view planes)
- the lobby is too bland
- the artifact display completely misses the mark ( should have been a grand theme)
- the exterior cladding is a sandstone wannabee
- the arcade on Hollis is a waste of very limited pedestrian space
- the copper dome is 46.3% too small
- however the fieldstone on the commercial building and in the landscaping on Lower Water just makes the grade

Many of these comments don't make sense;
- low ceilings? for who? Salter's Gate has 6 floors of money making space, levels 3-8. Take away one for extra ceiling clearance and the developer won't be able to get financing for the project, as the leasable space will be reduced by 16.6%. All development runs on a model of profit - if you can't make a profit, it doesn't get built. Full stop.
- which Lobby is too bland? If you are referring to the Hotel Lobby, the design is a "standard" Courtyard except for the fireplace and artifacts display. I understand it isn't for everyone, however the Marriott people know what works and they insist on their design for any hotel bearing their name.
-the artifact display was created with the input from the NS Goverment and the private Archaelogical Firm DAC Consulting. This display represents the FIRST TIME the NS Government has ever allowed a PRIVATE BUSINESS to permanently display artifacts. Please try to remember that the artifacts are located in a hotel lobby and that the hotel is not located in a museum.
- the precast cladding is supposed to mimic sandstone - the advantage of precast concrete is durability, quality control, and speed of installation. While real sandstone would be beautiful, it is unfortunately very expensive and time consuming for installation. I see a lot of people on this board complaining about precast, however no solutions put forth. If you have a building to erect, there is a financial reson for complting it as soon as possible. Glass and aluminium systems simply take longer, and include many more small bits that are assembled in the field thereby increasing the odds for a mistake that will eventually leak.
- the arcade along Hollis Street was an HRM requirement for this development. I have heard some say they don't like it, however it is well lighted at night, and wide enough to have two people walk side by side. You can please some of the people some of the time.....
- the copper dome does look too small in relation to the building, however it also relates to an interior hotel suite. It is small as a result of the viewplane restrictions.

As you may have guessed with my intimate knowledge of this project, I am involved with this and the Condo project. I enjoy reading the discussions; an outside fresh perspective often sees things that have been right in front of our own eyes. Please keep posting.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Thank-you for following the forum and commenting.

[Keith P.]

Many of these comments don't make sense;
- low ceilings? for who? Salter's Gate has 6 floors of money making space, levels 3-8. Take away one for extra ceiling clearance and the developer won't be able to get financing for the project, as the leasable space will be reduced by 16.6%. All development runs on a model of profit - if you can't make a profit, it doesn't get built. Full stop.

I understand the reason why the building is the height it is was planning restrictions. Therefore the fault lies with the govt, for not amending those restrictions, and the developer, for not making a compelling-enough case for govt to amend those restrictions.

- the precast cladding is supposed to mimic sandstone - the advantage of precast concrete is durability, quality control, and speed of installation. While real sandstone would be beautiful, it is unfortunately very expensive and time consuming for installation. I see a lot of people on this board complaining about precast, however no solutions put forth. If you have a building to erect, there is a financial reson for complting it as soon as possible. Glass and aluminium systems simply take longer, and include many more small bits that are assembled in the field thereby increasing the odds for a mistake that will eventually leak.

The merits and demerits of these faux materials are being discussed right now in another thread on the site which, quite coincidentally, I updated earlier today using this building as one of the examples:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3435584#post3435584

Sorry for using your building as a bad example.

Again, I have to blame the developer for this along with the govt. The developer, because he was trying to mimic an expensive material on the cheap, and it looks it; and the govt, for demanding a faux-heritage look for that part of town.

- the arcade along Hollis Street was an HRM requirement for this development. I have heard some say they don't like it, however it is well lighted at night, and wide enough to have two people walk side by side. You can please some of the people some of the time.....

It is a fairly major disaster from an aesthetic standpoint. Again, I blame the govt.

- the copper dome does look too small in relation to the building, however it also relates to an interior hotel suite. It is small as a result of the viewplane restrictions.


Surely a case could have been made that the dome would not in any way cause anyone distress if it was enlarged to an appropriate size. I have to blame the developer for not trying hard enough.

[someone456]

I understand the reason why the building is the height it is was planning restrictions. Therefore the fault lies with the govt, for not amending those restrictions, and the developer, for not making a compelling-enough case for govt to amend those restrictions.



The merits and demerits of these faux materials are being discussed right now in another thread on the site which, quite coincidentally, I updated earlier today using this building as one of the examples:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3435584#post3435584

Sorry for using your building as a bad example.

Again, I have to blame the developer for this along with the govt. The developer, because he was trying to mimic an expensive material on the cheap, and it looks it; and the govt, for demanding a faux-heritage look for that part of town.



It is a fairly major disaster from an aesthetic standpoint. Again, I blame the govt.



Surely a case could have been made that the dome would not in any way cause anyone distress if it was enlarged to an appropriate size. I have to blame the developer for not trying hard enough.


There is no such thing as trying hard enough when it comes to viewplanes - they are the sacred cow of Halifax, never to be interfered with. Suggesting otherwise indicates a complete misunderstanding of the development guidelines / hurdles that property Owners face. It would be a wiser use of money to pile it up and burn it rather than pose an argument with HRM council on viewplanes - at least then you'll get some heat.

Thanks for the reply.

[Empire]

Many of these comments don't make sense;
- low ceilings? for who?

I'm not sure which comments don't make sense? HRM planning, the developer and the viewplane leglislation have combined to produce a building that is altered in a way that detracts from a quality development. THE CEILINGS ARE TOO LOW IN THE LOBBY, THE HALLS AND THE ROOMS. More attention could have been paid to the entry at the corner of Hollis and Salter...maybe some granite or real sandstone to define the entry? The whole building doesn't have to be done in granite or sandstone...JUST THE ENTRY WAY. The dome is too small for the application because of viewplanes so find a feature that works. Viewplanes for the most part are destroying the appearance of buildings.

[someone123]

It's true that the viewplanes are a sacred cow. Many people act as if they are gospel and were some kind of amazing stroke of genius when in reality they're very dated and don't make sense in terms of driving developers to build the best buildings possible. The floor height issue is one example of a problem with the viewplanes.

I don't think the developer should be expected to enter into a protracted legal battle over the size of a decorative element on their building.

[Wishblade]

Anybody know when the committee is supposed to make their decision on this proposal?

It was cut last week due to time restraints.

[Takeo]

That dome should have been deleted. It looks ridiculous. Like a tiny little stuck on christmas decoration. Like a little pimple. I can't believe any architect would have actually designed it that way. If the view planes turned it into a parody of itself, it would have been better to delete it.

And the ceilings are really low. The new Spirit Spa feels like you're in someone's basement. I loved the high ceilings in their old space.

So arcades are a design requirement from the city?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! That's crazy! That's news to me. If true, that's completely insane. Talk about hindering creativity. Wow. Unreal. When are the next elections?

On a related note... the arcade would also seem to allow that extra floor the developer needed... because it allowed the retail level to be partially below grade. Makes for a crappy pedestrian experience. The two store fronts are kinda hidden down and under an imposing concrete and styrofoam arcade.

What a difference an extra 10 feet would have made eh? I don't envy what architects are up against in this city.

[someone456]

Arcades were a requirement for that development; not all development. When the Development Permit process is undertaken, all parties get a say and the city staffers then modify the proposals to make use of comments. For example, there were some negative comments on the Salter's Gate arcade, and I believe those comments justified having the arcade elements dropped from the "Alexander" proposal.
Your comment to remove 20% of all leasable space in the building would have ensured the property remained a parking lot. Extra head height is great, but if you don't have the space you work with what you have.

[Takeo]

Who's comment to remove 20% of leasable space? I don't see that anywhere on this thread.

So how did an arcade become a design requirement for that building? Who made that a requirement? The client?

[someone456]

WRT the arcade, I believe that the planners in 2002 wanted to try and incorporate more pedestrian space at grade level so they were suggesting the use of arcades. It might have resulted from earlier Barrington Street feedback.
Terribly sorry you and others don't like the ceiling heights. I agree that it would have made for better retail with 10-12 foot clearances. You play the cards you're dealt. We'll try to use your comments as a positive move on the next phase.

[someone123]

Glass awnings are common here in Vancouver and would probably work well in Halifax.

Arcades would maybe be fine as well but when they're too short and below street level they look very private and uninviting (which is definitely not a good thing if you've got storefronts behind them). Hills complicate things as well.

I like what I've seen of the proposed tower for the South end of the brewery lot. The Lower Water St elevation up on the HRM website currently shows an attractive curved corner entrance plus some storefronts built right up to the street.

The proposed Halkirk House building unfortunately suffers from the same issues of proportion mentioned earlier. Its ground floor is only 2/3 as tall as that of Benjamin Weir house next door and shorter than the upper floors, making it look unbalanced. If it were bumped up by about 50% the building would look much nicer, even if this came at the expense of having a lower roofline than Keith Hall (which is almost insignificant, though I could see people getting worked up over this).

[worldlyhaligonian]

where are we at then with this development? it will add a nice piece to our skyline!

[someone123]

Looks like the District 12 PAC discussed this development a few hours ago. That is what was supposed to happen last week.

Not sure when this would go to council. The development would also be subject to appeal to the URB. I would not be surprised if it happened due to its proximity to Government House but I hope it does not.

[Haliguy]

Halifax council finally deciding on contentious condo tower
Project proposed almost six years ago
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Tue. May 13 - 7:58 AM

After almost six years, a downtown Halifax tower and condominium project proposed for the Brewery Market area will come before regional council tonight.

The $30-million, 21-storey condominium project, called the Alexander and proposed for the south side of Halkirk’s brewery property, is on the agenda for the meeting at city hall.

In the past three weeks, the proposed development, including the renovation of Keith Hall, the 1860s-era mansion built for beer baron Alexander Keith, has received differing opinions from three bodies that advise council on planning issues.

Those opinions include a vote of confidence from city planning staff, a noncommittal vote from the downtown district planning advisory committee and a veto from the city’s heritage advisory committee.

A member of the heritage advisory committee said he was surprised that the committee turned it down because "everyone had mostly good things to say" about the proposal.

"I think everybody generally liked the plan, but most people have a problem with the tower, the height of the tower," Mark Pothier said in a recent interview.

The development would add value to the area, Mr. Pothier said.

"I felt the tower was already behind the Maritime Centre."

An owner of Greenwood Lane said he was disappointed that the proposal received a bad review from council’s heritage advisory committee.

"It’s interesting that this project was endorsed by (the) heritage advisory committee the last time we went to them, and the tower is now lower and it’s a much more improved design in our opinion," Bill Greenwood said recently.

The company has spent a lot of time developing its plans for the Alexander, with the support of municipal planning staff, Mr. Greenwood said.

The first application for the development was made in the spring of 2002, he said.

"We’ve been at it for some time," he said.

Part of the application calls for the restoration of Keith Hall, which he calls "a gem."

"It’s a spectacular property and we want to bring it back to its original grandeur. But for us to do that, we need in the millions of dollars to restore that building. So we need the Alexander project to support that initiative."

Councillors will debate the merits of the three reports and decide what course to chart.

If they decide to go ahead, a public hearing will be set before any decision is made.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

[sdm]

Well this should be interesting to see if this gets approved tonight and makes it to the next round.

I like the revised drawings, nice project.

[someone123]

Heh..? The HAC decided AGAINST this one this time, even though it was shortened and improved in various ways? I guess the members might have changed since 2003 or so but it's hard to imagine how a process can be less fair than that. I am amazed that the developers have been willing to put up with this absurd process.

The original torpedoing of the 27 storey brewery tower was part of the reason behind forcing larger downtown projects to go to regional council. Let's hope they make the right decision. This would be a very good development that would make that part of town feel much more complete.

[Takeo]

What's the difference between 21 stories and 27 stories?! Seems ridiculous. I mean... once you get over 10-12 stories... who cares how tall it is? It's not like Pacey will be jumping for joy over a 21 story building versus a 27 story building. Who are they trying to please? Why compromise on your design? When it comes to design... compromise usually has detrimental results.

[someone123]

In Halifax, if you don't compromise your design your building is never built.

The 27 tower proposal was already officially submitted and was shot down by two councillors on the four member PAC (they voted not to even let it go to public consultation).

[Dmajackson]

Well if i interperted council correctly the new building is allowed to proceed to public meetings. Harvey could possible be right that this will be "TexPark 2". Main difference though, glass versus brick/stone..

[Wishblade]

Well if i interperted council correctly the new building is allowed to proceed to public meetings. Harvey could possible be right that this will be "TexPark 2". Main difference though, glass versus brick/stone..

Not to mention the restoration of Keith Hall.

I personally cant see this getting anywhere near the controversy that the UG towers got.

[Haliguy]

Yeah, I don't see this getting the attention that the UG towers got, but who knows I guess.

What about the Brenton St development is that going to public hearing as well?

[spaustin]

Yep. It sailed through with barely a whisper. Doesn't look like they'll be many problems with that one. Given the tone from this evening, I'm not optomistic that the Alexander will survive a public hearing, especially in an election year which is a shame. I think the original deserved to be shot down but it looks and sounds like the developer has adjusted things for the better. This one isn't perfect, but on balance I think it's acceptable and it will probably do wonders to further revitalize those blocks south of the downtown (the unpaved vacant lot certainly isn't helping). It'll be a pity if it doesn't make it.

[Jonovision]

An article from today Herald. (I'm posting it in both towers respective threads.)

Downtown projects move ahead
21-storey condo development and 19-storey residential building sent to public hearings
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. May 14 - 5:37 AM

It was a big night Tuesday at city hall for two proposed downtown developments after council agreed to send both to public hearings.

The projects are a 21-storey condo Halkirk wants to build on the south side of its Brewery Market property and a 19-storey residential building the W.M. Fares group is eyeing for the corner of Brenton and South Park streets.

While the Fares proposal elicited no debate among councillors, there were a few comments about Halkirk’s $30-million development.

That’s because the building, which had a thumbs-up from city planning staffers, drew some negative response from council’s heritage advisory committee.

That committee and the downtown planning advisory committee assist council by reviewing projects to ensure they fit within the city’s heritage and planning strategies.

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) wondered whether the volunteers who sit on city boards have their responsibilities well outlined to them, especially when the projects are already recommended by city planning staffers.

"When you turn down a positive recommendation from staff, you are supposed to quote the applicable sections of the heritage act or the land-use bylaw or the (municipal planning strategy) that apply to that."

Neither of the advisory board reports on the project did that, she said.

"To me, it’s not the fault of the committees. . . . But if you are going to have a developer, in this particular instance, that has to go the 27 rounds we’d say in golf, then (the committees had) better have some concrete understanding of where they’re coming from before they get to . . . council."

But Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) said the developer altered his plan within the last week, adding window and balcony bays to what had been a blank, sheer wall on the Bishop Street side.

"He went back and changed it . . . because I wasn’t willing to even take this to the public."

Coun. Patrick Murphy (Halifax North End) wondered whether accompanying multimillion-dollar renovations to Keith Hall, the 1863 mansion built for beer baron and former Halifax mayor Alexander Keith, would include interior as well as exterior building restoration.

While planner Paul Sampson said interior designs were not part of the development agreement, Ms. Sloane explained that original stained glass windows and other architectural features would remain intact.

Another councillor wondered how the new developments would be handled with the city’s downtown planning project, called HRM By Design, in the works.

Although the city has drafted new rules for downtown development through the project, the area is still governed by the old guidelines until council approves and implements the new plan.

That had Coun. Bob Harvey (Lower Sackville) wondering if any decision on the Halkirk proposal would be superseded by the new guidelines.

"It’s going to be a race between public hearings for these amendments and for the Halifax By Design amendments. I mean, which are we going to get first?"

Austin French, manager of planning, said the HRM By Design proposals probably wouldn’t be before council until mid-summer.

The public hearings on both downtown developments will likely be held within the next month.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

[someone123]

Yep. It sailed through with barely a whisper. Doesn't look like they'll be many problems with that one. Given the tone from this evening, I'm not optomistic that the Alexander will survive a public hearing, especially in an election year which is a shame. I think the original deserved to be shot down but it looks and sounds like the developer has adjusted things for the better. This one isn't perfect, but on balance I think it's acceptable and it will probably do wonders to further revitalize those blocks south of the downtown (the unpaved vacant lot certainly isn't helping). It'll be a pity if it doesn't make it.

I am pretty optimistic about the actual council vote. My main concern is that it will be appealed by the same old crew of myopic obstructionists.

[Wishblade]

I am pretty optimistic about the actual council vote. My main concern is that it will be appealed by the same old crew of myopic obstructionists.

I just don't see any basis for an argument. It would fit into the area perfectly...

[someone123]

There doesn't have to be a basis for an argument, they just need to come up with the $600 or whatever it is and then a stack of paper to keep the URB busy for a year.

I agree that there is no reasonable argument against the proposal at this point - it's shorter than the nearby Maritime Centre, there are lots of mid-scale buildings surrounding it, the developers have shortened the height in response to criticism (i.e. this is already a compromise with those who will likely appeal it anyway), the current lot is unsightly and in an important, visible area, and the proposal includes money for the badly needed restoration of Keith Hall.

[Canopus]

There doesn't have to be a basis for an argument, they just need to come up with the $600 or whatever it is and then a stack of paper to keep the URB busy for a year.

How about the Province look at abandoning the URB and let things move straight to court if need be?

Doesn't something similar happen in BC with the cities playing a much more concilliatory role though?

[sdm]

There doesn't have to be a basis for an argument, they just need to come up with the $600 or whatever it is and then a stack of paper to keep the URB busy for a year.

I agree that there is no reasonable argument against the proposal at this point - it's shorter than the nearby Maritime Centre, there are lots of mid-scale buildings surrounding it, the developers have shortened the height in response to criticism (i.e. this is already a compromise with those who will likely appeal it anyway), the current lot is unsightly and in an important, visible area, and the proposal includes money for the badly needed restoration of Keith Hall.

Well there is news out regarding the URB and imposing of cost associated to appeals.

in other words if an appeal is launched they best get it right or the party(ies) could be held for damages.

Of course according to the news release the main people pleading to the government are of course the Heritage Trust individuals.

Wonder how much the appeal of the twisted sisters could have costed the heritage trust if this was in place.

[Keith P.]

An article from today Herald. (I'm posting it in both towers respective threads.)
"When you turn down a positive recommendation from staff, you are supposed to quote the applicable sections of the heritage act or the land-use bylaw or the (municipal planning strategy) that apply to that."

Neither of the advisory board reports on the project did that, she said.

"To me, it’s not the fault of the committees. . . . But if you are going to have a developer, in this particular instance, that has to go the 27 rounds we’d say in golf, then (the committees had) better have some concrete understanding of where they’re coming from before they get to . . . council."

This is a really good point. I suspect that these people who get appointed to these committees basically start to believe that they are the czars of whether or not things should be built. It would not surprise me that they do not get a whole lot of direction from above.

But Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) said the developer altered his plan within the last week, adding window and balcony bays to what had been a blank, sheer wall on the Bishop Street side.

"He went back and changed it . . . because I wasn’t willing to even take this to the public."

Does anyone know what she is talking about? What process went on in the last week to cause this? God forbid that developers have to meet Sloanes bizarre ideas of what is acceptable or not in order to get something built in this town. Nobody should have that kind of power.

Coun. Patrick Murphy (Halifax North End) wondered whether accompanying multimillion-dollar renovations to Keith Hall, the 1863 mansion built for beer baron and former Halifax mayor Alexander Keith, would include interior as well as exterior building restoration.

While planner Paul Sampson said interior designs were not part of the development agreement, Ms. Sloane explained that original stained glass windows and other architectural features would remain intact.

I watched this part of the debate and was astounded. Murphy, I am rapidly becoming convinced, is just as big a moron as Sloane. Why would a developer gut the interior of such a building if he is trying to sell it as a restoration? Do these kouncil klowns really believe they are smarter than anyone else?

Another councillor wondered how the new developments would be handled with the city’s downtown planning project, called HRM By Design, in the works.

Although the city has drafted new rules for downtown development through the project, the area is still governed by the old guidelines until council approves and implements the new plan.

That had Coun. Bob Harvey (Lower Sackville) wondering if any decision on the Halkirk proposal would be superseded by the new guidelines.

Harvey ought to read what is put in front of him or, god forbid, quietly ask a question to staff before he gets up on his hind legs to pontificate. He was advocating this be delayed until after HbD is approved -- whenever that may be. He voted against the development by the way, one of 9 to do so. It amazes me that there are actually 9 people on that kouncil who do not think this should proceed. What the heck do they want there?

[someone123]

Not sure what Sloane was talking about with the blank wall. Looking at the Bishop Street elevation there is no blank wall, although maybe it was changed.

I get the sense that she parrots back what she hears at urban design and planning talks without really knowing anything about design and without much regard to the "big picture".

As for nine councillors voting against, that's just depressing. I was waiting for some of them to vote against it just to delay it until HbD is complete, just as they thought it was a good idea to enforce development moratoria when the [ongoing] regional planning stuff started maybe 5+ years ago. Of course, this means nothing to Harvey out in Sackville. I wonder how many times he's been past this ugly derelict site during the past five years?

The level of ignorance and stupidity is stunning...

[someone123]

A public hearing for this development is scheduled for June 17:

June 17, 2008 Halifax Regional Council - 6:00 p.m.

Public Hearing:

Case 00971 - MPS/LUB Amendments and Development Agreement, Halkirk (Keiths Brewery) lands, Lower Water, Bishop and Hollis Street, Halifax.

[Jonovision]

Nice. Hopefully I'll be able to make it.

[Empire]

But Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) said the developer altered his plan within the last week, adding window and balcony bays to what had been a blank, sheer wall on the Bishop Street side.

"He went back and changed it . . . because I wasn’t willing to even take this to the public."


No one knows what she is talking about. A blank shear wall is what is on the horrible south side of the North American Life Building or what was proposed for the south side of the Midtown proposal. The Alexander has windows on all sides and would be one of the most attractive towers in town. The current site is typical of downtown.......makeshift ugly parking with cheap ugly renovations surrounding it. When will someone with vision lead this town.

[spaustin]

I watched the council session and I think she was referring to that the Hollis Street side was a straight wall going up the tower (with windows on it), but now is curved for balconies and other details. That's what I took away from her statement. That the Holli Street wall is more detailed then it was, not that it was ever going to be blank.

[phrenic]

Anybody want to place their bets on the outcome of the public hearing?

[sdm]

Anybody want to place their bets on the outcome of the public hearing?

Approved, 18 for.....

Question is when the appeal comes for HT

[sdm]

Pretty clear message here tonight, would be surprised if this wasn't approved.

[terrynorthend]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the public support..

[phrenic]

Me too.

[Dmajackson]

I've so far only missed a minute or two of the speakers but i've only heard three or four against it. This is the first time i've heard something like 6 in a row in support. Did Pacey speak yet? I haven't heard him and he usually goes first.

[sdm]

I've so far only missed a minute or two of the speakers but i've only heard three or four against it. This is the first time i've heard something like 6 in a row in support. Did Pacey speak yet? I haven't heard him and he usually goes first.

both pacey's and the famous alan ruffman spoke pretty much last in this evenings hearing. All three had no sound arguements against the project.

It will be approved

[Haliguy]

Yeah it was great to see so many for the project tonight. It was quite refreshing. The people against it are the same old people who make absurd arguments against why it should not be built. Its like a broken record. They are losing more and more credibility all the time.

[someone123]

Didn't see the hearing but this is all pretty encouraging.

Did Sloane vote against it after the "blank wall" stuff? That would be amusing.

[Dmajackson]

They didn't have time for all the speakers so nobody voted tonight. I think they had something like 30 people left at the half-hour mark. Its being carried over to next monday or tuesday. Oh well with all the support it should be approved easily.

Okay i heard Elizabeth Pacey speak and i swear i heard her say they shouldn't allow this because of some made-up story about someone sneaking away from an insignificant historic house. If this was true that would mean tht everyone who has worked on the harbour should have a view of the harbour from their three storey house in a growing downtown....weird....

[someone123]

Rather than forcing the Paceys to speak over and over I think they should just record one of those "Scottish Georgian" speeches and play it back at every public hearing regarding downtown development.

She probably complained about how Government House wouldn't be visible from the water anymore but that minor drawback is dramatically outweighed by the restoration of Keith Hall, something that is much less likely to happen if a smaller development is built. 99% of the historic value of Government House is in its street presence and that will be largely unaffected by the new tower.

[Dmajackson]

I don't recall her saying anything about the Government House then again i stopped listening after hearing her tell the irrelevant "Scottish Georgian" story about the shipbuilder. She kept saying how we shouldn't block the view of the harbour from the shipbuilder's houses. I don't know about her but when i leave work i don't want to see it until i clock back in the next morning. And the people who know live in these houses don't work on the harbour so protecting the view for someone who doesn't exist anymore is strange to say the least.

[Spitfire75]

Tower draws mostly cheers (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1062660.html)
Most support Brewery project during crowded council meeting
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Jun 18 - 5:43 AM

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/photos/xlarge/brewery_Metro_06-18-08_TQ8G60K.jpg (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:viewfullsize%28%27brewery_Metro_06-18-08_TQ8G60K.jpg%27%29)
Halkirk’s proposed 21-storey tower on Hollis and Bishop streets. (Contributed)
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/images/spacer.gif

A proposed 21-storey building for downtown Halifax was creating so much buzz at city hall Tuesday that its future will have to be decided next week.
That’s because regional councillors only had time to entertain 27 speakers out of an expected 54 at a three-hour public hearing.

If Tuesday’s speakers were any indication, expect almost 75 per cent to be in favour of putting the new building on the corner of Hollis and Bishop streets.

That’s an unusual ratio of people in favour of a development.

A hearing at city hall last week for a 19-storey building on the corner of South Park and Brenton streets drew an almost equal number of speakers for and against before council gave it a resounding thumbs up.

Last night, people were asking council to approve the project so Halifax could have a future to go along with its past.

"It’s not about freeze-drying the downtown, it’s about growth in the downtown respecting our heritage without compromising the ability for our city to grow," said Brad Smith of Dartmouth.

Heritage and development don’t have to be mutually exclusive, he said.
That point was picked up by a number of people, many of whom lauded Halkirk Developments for its planned $2-million restoration of historic Keith Hall on Hollis Street.

Halkirk needs to make the money from the residential component of the tower with its condominiums before it can restore the former home of mayor and beer baron Alexander Keith.

"Keith Hall is sitting there rotting," said Paul MacKinnon, executive director of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, noting he’s willing to trade in a little height for its restoration.

Kent Lane, who works with CBCL in the Brewery Market, said the attention to detail on Halkirk’s current proposal is indicative of the "attention to detail" they put into their Salter’s Gate hotel and condo project which opened last summer.

Angus MacDonald said he’s in favour of modernization and development but it must be in keeping with the city’s nearby registered heritage buildings.And while the Alexander would not be an "incongruous monstrosity" like some other nearby buildings, he said, at 21 storeys, it doesn’t fit.

Heritage Trust president Phil Pacey, of Halifax, said the tower was not compatible with the historic nature of the neighbourhood, including historic Government House. The block is also home to the finest collection of Scottish Georgian architecture outside Scotland, he said, and controls should be put in place to ensure its survival.

The area is currently governed by a 7.5-metre height limit, he said.
"And instead of changing the proposal to meet the (planning strategy), the applicant is asking HRM to change the strategy to match its proposal," Mr. Pacey said

Fred Morley of the Greater Halifax Partnership said heritage properties need economic vitality "surrounding and embracing them" or they will slowly crumble.

"We will end up with parking lots. If we don’t accept change of any kind we end up a city with no future, and increasingly no past."

Another speaker said parts of the city are already crumbling.

Before the council meeting, Adam Conter said he walked through a barren Barrington Street with run-down spaces.

"The urban sprawl no longer brings people to the downtown core."
Bringing more density to the downtown core is part of the city’s regional plan, which is being carried forward by its HRM By Design project.

Bill Campbell, who spoke on behalf of the developer, said the project would do just that: bring life to the area and enhance the heritage value of the streetscape through its design.
( apugsley@herald.ca)Some positive comments (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1062660.html#commentos) on the article too. I really can't see this not going through.

[HaliStreaks]

"incongruous monstrosity"

LOL :haha:

I will never forget the first time that quote was pulled out at the United Gulf hearings, and how dramatically it was said with tone and the rolled "r" in "monstrosity". I was at the hearing for UG when it was initially said, then came home as fast as I could for the re-broadcast later in the evening just to get that soundbyte recorded.

I wasn't able to catch the hearing last night, I was visiting with a family friend who lives on the burned side of Candy Mountain Road (house is kinda melty but its still there) But from what I've been seeing here about the overwhelming ammount of support for this, I think this will be approved.

[someone123]

Annoying how Pacey still uses the "changing the planning strategy" argument when this was totally debunked by a member of staff during the South Park and Brenton public hearing. These 7.5 metre cutoffs were never meant as a hard limit on development heights, but rather define a point beyond which development is deemed important enough to require some level of public input.

[planarchy]

This really is a horrible looking proposal. Assuming it will be similar to the project on the North end of the lot, the Keith's brewery will be surrounded by pathetic, uninspiring crap.

[Keith P.]

This really is a horrible looking proposal. Assuming it will be similar to the project on the North end of the lot, the Keith's brewery will be surrounded by pathetic, uninspiring crap.

That may be a bit strong, but given that I believe they are using the same architect that they did for the Marriott down at the other end of the block, and the general resemblance to it that the rendering shows, it does not offer much hope for a good design.

[someone123]

Could be better, could be worse. I think this will turn out a little better than Salter's Gate. The ground floor details are a little cleaner. The tower itself doesn't look too bad.

I'm not a fan of the precast that will no doubt be used for most of the cladding but I'm also not a fan of the dumpy empty lot that's been there for decades. The site of Salter's Gate is similar and I would argue that the current building, for all its shortcomings, is a hell of a lot better than having the old parking lot and loading area there.

[Jonovision]

I know it's not the most inspiring architecture, but I like it. Salters Gate is really growing on me and I think the Alexander will do the same. It is at least something different from all the other boxy towers downtown.

[Keith P.]

Passed tonight at council, 17-3. Once again Sloane voted against it. While I have little hope it will be much more than a barely adequate design, at least it beats a hole in the ground.

[Dmajackson]

It's nice to know it got passed. Now we wait for the appeal from HT...

[someone456]

Passed tonight at council, 17-3. Once again Sloane voted against it. While I have little hope it will be much more than a barely adequate design, at least it beats a hole in the ground.

That Sloane is a real item - she supported the project earlier, after she bullied the developer into making very costly changes, then flip-flops when a couple of student renters moan. Democracy - gotta love it! Glad to see it passed. I'm sure however, that no design could please certain members of this forum.:notacrook:

[Haliguy]

she really is a piece of work...

[someone123]

Well this is fully what I expected from Sloane from the beginning. I hope she gets replaced in November.

[Takeo]

What was Sloane's rationale for voting no?

[Jonovision]

I was there again tonight. A very down night compared to last week, but glad it was passed. I do have to admit that a few of the naysayers had some really good arguments. I am always very impressed by Fougere. She's very good at dismissing most of the frivolous arguments put forward by the heritage people. So is it Morris and Hollis up next week?

[Dmajackson]

Thats tonight at 7pm...

EDIT: To answer your question there is nothing on next Tuesday because of Canada Day. The following week (July 8) is King's Wharf and 6955 Bayers Road.

[Keith P.]

The CTV 6PM news had a report on this tonight. As usual they spent the majority of the air time with Phil Pacey decrying the effects of the project. They did get Sheila Fougere on who explained very clearly that this does not affect the viewplanes one bit. Then they had Bob Harvey saying basically that he was against it because he would rather have had something more in line with HRM by Design principles. It ended with the usual veiled threat by the HT that they are "considering their options".

At least they didn't bother with Sloane. It would have been nice if the reporter had asked her why she has voted against the last several development proposals for her district, but he didn't strike me as being very clued in on the issue so he likely didn't know that.

[Spitfire75]

The more I hear about Sheila Fougere, the more I like her.

[someone123]

She is running as mayor. I think she is a better choice than Kelly.

I like her suggestion to cut council down to 12-15 members, although that could be another "commuter rail line" since it involves the province. Still, it makes sense to try and that is something that the mayor can genuinely push for but HRM council as a whole is unlikely to.

[Dmajackson]

The council size defenitely needs to be cut down. Keep the three main areas as seperate districts (Bedford, Hfx, and Dartmouth) and merge some other areas. I really don' see why Sackville is divided into two or more districts, its pointless. Sorry to thread jack.

She's defenitely better then Kelly.

[Haliguy]

She is better than Kelly thats for sure. At least you know what she is about and what she is thinking. Peter Kelly you have no idea what is thoughts are on anything.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Because he is too afraid to have an opinion.

[Jonovision]

A tiny rendering from the paper today. Also showing the United Gulf towers.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/photos/xlarge/halkirk01_Metro_07-11-08_P78L2MB.jpg

[someone123]

Here is the full-sized version (I added the Trillium condo project):
http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/99280294/original.jpg

Has there been any news about an appeal for this development?

[Jonovision]

Sweet! Thanks. No, no news of an appeal. So I think were clear for construction to start soon. At least thats what they said at the hearing.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Huge post. Although not the tallest, I think Halifax will have one of the best skylines in Canada in a few years.

[terrynorthend]

Here is the full-sized version (I added the Trillium condo project):
http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/99280294/original.jpg

.
Nice. Can you add the Salter Street Block development to your pic? Does that development have a name other than SALTER STREET BLOCK, btw? So unsexy

[terrynorthend]

Oh, I get it..that is a cutaway elevation to the west side of Lwr. Water Street. I was wondering where Bishop's Landing was.. Lol. Still its a great shot.

Someone with more time and industry than I should render a complete Halifax skyline with all these new proposals. I recall someone on here had a nice panoramic photo of Halifax..think it was Halistreaks, but that was nightime..maybe a daytime version with the new developments rendered in..

..anytakers?

[phrenic]

I'd be willing to insert the renderings in their locations on a large pano of our skyline, but I make no guarantees about how polished it would look...I'm simply not that good, lol.

It is a good idea though and gives you a good sense of what the city will look like. For example, here is a future rendering of Toronto (http://www.upside-down.ca/maldive/futurebig.jpg), with all of it's proposed, approved and under construction projects. Credit goes to user "Maldive".

[Spitfire75]

Damn, Toronto is impressive as hell. Makes Halifax seem so small.

[someone123]

Halifax is a small city and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

That being said, the appeal of the city is definitely not in its highrise buildings, although I think having some more in key locations could be positive since they could introduce more people and activity and some different architecture.

The big strengths of Halifax are its history, its population, and its geographic location. Even the photo above contains buildings like Government House, which perhaps has no equal in Canada in terms of combined quality and age. I am currently living in Vancouver and I miss the diverse mix of finely-scaled buildings that Halifax has.

It's really nice to have a city built on the water and I hope more of the downtown core is brought right down to the waterfront in the coming years. The Halkirk tower will contribute to this by tying in the Bishop's Landing area with the downtown a little more. There's also opportunity to make the area much more active with transportation connections to Bedford and tourist ferry routes to George's Island, etc.