PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : [Halifax] The Trillium l 65 m l 19 fl l Completed



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Keith P.
Jun 10, 2008, 10:10 PM
Someone just got up to argue that the development would block sunlight and one of their points was "for every one young person who leaves nova scotia for better opportunities, there are 10 who leave for better sunlight."

She looks confused and disheveled.

Her name was Shotwell.

Unfortunately she wasn't shot well enough. ;)

Liz Pacey coming up. :yuck:

ETA: She rambled on and on about Schmidtville, and in particular one small building. She claimed that soemhow Schmidtville was important to shoppers on SGR, though nobody could figure out how.

I lived in that neighborhood for over 7 years and never heard of Schmidtville until I moved out. So fine, it has recently become recognized as a historic neighborhood. This development does not touch it at all. But the Schmidtville owners, she claims, would be "driven out" by this development. Ridiculous to the extreme. She also ignores the presence of existing tall buildings immediately adjacent. God help us.

terrynorthend
Jun 10, 2008, 10:12 PM
HAHA..I just saw that..god, i can't even bear to watch..I'm fliping channels...

Keith P.
Jun 10, 2008, 10:37 PM
Lyndon Watkins -- who is the person I believe actually created the Schmidtville idea -- seemed to argue that it was a historical reconstruction manufactured by him and others thanks to the Neighborhood Improvement Program of the 1970s. Perhaps it is like a Disney theme park, made to look like something it isn't.

He also claimed that he had 500 people in his house to look at it once, and that no other building, especially the evil modern high rise, could match that. With 420 units, I tend to think that Park Vic probably trumps him. And if he had 500 people in his house at once, I'd like to see it -- the aftermath, not the house.

ETA: It is ironic that the music being played during the break is "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley. :)

someone123
Jun 10, 2008, 10:37 PM
I'm watching it online. I've seen at least one forumer speak and he presented some good points.

Now the home viewers get to listen to old pop music on Eastlink...

There's a lot of heritage talk but it's very poorly connected to this particular development. There are three houses on the development site but I was under the impression that they would be relocated. Currently they're on a busy street and are part of a broken streetscape. Elizabeth Pacey jumped from talking about Scottish dormers to claiming that the area would be "devastated" by this development. Why?

Keith P.
Jun 10, 2008, 11:19 PM
It's a real shame that the people opposed can't make a rational argument. Larry Hughes must be crazy, suggesting that any new building be no more than 4 or 5 floors and be self-sustaining for energy. Then there was the guy who sounded like the prototypical south-end old-money snob and offended anyone who spoke in favor of the building suggesting they had a self-interest in doing so, conveniently ignoring his own. Then we had the French woman who was going on about Monet. That will probably impress Sloane. Cripes.

sdm
Jun 10, 2008, 11:35 PM
Gee look whats happening, anti development halifax.

Time to move

Keith P.
Jun 10, 2008, 11:43 PM
Well, It'll be interesting. I suppose council could take note of the fact that those opposed are the same one opposed to every other development on the peninsula. It is exactly the same bunch of squeaky wheels who were opposed to the United Gulf project. Or they could just say no and shoot down such a good project.

Dmajackson
Jun 11, 2008, 12:02 AM
My two favorite (:rolleyes: ) speakers had to be one who caimed hed seen a 40 year old version of this in Toronto and the second last one who argued with Peter Kelly. At the end two of the final speakers had it all right thankfully they knew this looked great and would help the area not ruin it.

someone123
Jun 11, 2008, 12:33 AM
Unsurprisingly, Sue Uteck called the opponents out on pretty much all of their ridiculous arguments. Good to see.

The fact is the same old people complain over and over about practically everything. The people who spoke tonight were not a random sampling of the population of HRM by any stretch.

Great comments from Councillor Younger as well.

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 12:43 AM
Unsurprisingly, Sue Uteck called the opponents out on pretty much all of their ridiculous arguments. Good to see.

The fact is the same old people complain over and over about practically everything. The people who spoke tonight were not a random sampling of the population of HRM by any stretch.

Great comments from Councillor Younger as well.

Sue did a great job.

Now Sloane will ruin it.

I say move Uteck to downtown and sloane to south end and we will get our developments

Keith P.
Jun 11, 2008, 12:48 AM
As I fully expected, Sloane grandstanded for a while and then opposed it. Hopefully it is just for effect and others will see the light.

It is a shame that doorknob Kouncillor Johns and also doorstop Kouncillor Sloane muddied the issue by talking about making this "affordable" housing. When has South Park Street EVER been affordable? Absurd.

Fougere is also making good points.

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 12:59 AM
Murphy for it now.

Will be interesting to see what grounds heritage trust appeal it under

someone123
Jun 11, 2008, 1:00 AM
So did I hear that wrong or was Sloane the ONLY one to vote against it? I always thought this one was a really clear call. She's definitely out to lunch.

As for the appeal, I hope it doesn't happen but who knows? I think the HT's chances of success would be basically nil.

Dmajackson
Jun 11, 2008, 1:01 AM
Approved!! :D

Stats from tonight:

Speakers - 14 pro, 16 con

Council - 22 pro, 1 con (Sloane i believe)

Judging by what was stated the developer said possible start date in Fall (assuming no appeal).

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 1:06 AM
So did I hear that wrong or was Sloane the ONLY one to vote against it? I always thought this one was a really clear call. She's definitely out to lunch.

As for the appeal, I hope it doesn't happen but who knows? I think the HT's chances of success would be basically nil.

Who knows, but it was a clear call as you say. Just wish we could move more through like this.

Keith P.
Jun 11, 2008, 1:11 AM
The only one who voted against this was Sloane. But you can almost count on her trying to take credit for whatever good things eventually come out of this. Having her as the rep for the downtown, an area that is in such dire need of redevelopment, is simply nuts when she acts like this. Please god, someone replace her come election time.

Good thing that it passed. I doubt the HT has a leg to stand on in an appeal. Even the Paceys seemed mostly like they were just going thru the motions on this one.

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 1:16 AM
The only one who voted against this was Sloane. But you can almost count on her trying to take credit for whatever good things eventually come out of this. Having her as the rep for the downtown, an area that is in such dire need of redevelopment, is simply nuts when she acts like this. Please god, someone replace her come election time.

Good thing that it passed. I doubt the HT has a leg to stand on in an appeal. Even the Paceys seemed mostly like they were just going thru the motions on this one.

Someone needs to come to the plate against her, and hopefully will however i have little faith anyone will. A true shame.

As for HT, they really didn't have anything to stand on with regards to the appeal of the twisted sisters, but still did it. Now that project is in jepordy in ever being built because of the long duration to be approved.

I wish they could just refuse an appeal based on the council vote being so in favor.

hfx_chris
Jun 11, 2008, 1:37 AM
One thing one of the people spoke about during the hearing really made me take notice. He said young people don't know how to effect change in this bureaucratic municipality, and I do somewhat agree with him. With a few exceptions, the majority of those who spoke out tonight against were (aside from being the "usual crowd") older, more experienced working with government (read: getting what they want). The majority of those speaking for were younger, and don't have that same level of experience pulling governments strings.


Anyway, glad the vote went the way it didn't, although I would have been hugely surprised if it didn't.

spaustin
Jun 11, 2008, 1:45 AM
I don't think it's actually fair to blame Sloane here. Politicians have two roles to play. They're elected, especially in municipal politics where there aren't political parties, to use their brains when they vote, but they're also elected to represent the views of their constituents and sometimes that has to take precedence. In this case, Sloan had a petition with over 90 of her constituents names on it. The argument for her to represent them, especially since this one was pretty much a slam dunk and her vote wouldn't matter, regardless of whatever she may have thought of the project is really very strong. I think that's what she did this evening and I think that in doing so she served her constituents well. Now if the vote was going to be close... well then the water gets a little muddier.

Jonovision
Jun 11, 2008, 2:46 AM
I was there tonight. I spoke after Elizabeth Pacey. It was a very interesting debate thats for sure. I was a little worried since there seemed to be a lot of speakers against it. Even though most of their arguments made no sense, and I'm glad that some councilors pointed that out, and voted for the development. Although I must say I was terribly insulted by the man making comments about Toronto, and then took a stab at my education. He called me an architecture student.....I'm sorry, but if you are going to be that rude and insult someone, at least get it right! I'm a planning student, quite a big difference.

As far as sloan goes, well she's always a wildcard. And I do happen to have a friend who will be running against her in the fall election. He's a great guy and could do a lot of good for this city I think.

someone123
Jun 11, 2008, 3:03 AM
Sure, Sloane had a petition signed by 90 residents. That's 0.6% of her district and only a small fraction of the people living even within two blocks of the proposed development. I don't believe for a second that her vote was directed solely based on public input and had nothing to do with her own personal opinions and biases. I have no fundamental problem with that except for the fact that she personally exhibits a lack of overall understanding and perspective. The downtown would be much better served by a councillor who understands the big picture and is not just directed by emotional appeals from lower-middle class homeowners.

That guy who questioned the motives of everybody for the proposal just came off as a jerk and he got a public warning in response. And like Keith P. said, it's not as if he doesn't have private motives of his own.

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 10:26 AM
Despite opposition, council OKs tower

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Jun 11 - 5:28 AM

The excavators could be making room for a new 19-storey building in downtown Halifax this fall after regional council approved a new development for South Park Street.

After a lengthy public hearing Tuesday night that drew 30 people to city hall, councillors gave Wadih Fares’s "Trillium" building the go-ahead for the corner of Brenton Street.

The hearing — which took up so much of council’s four-hour meeting time that it had to defer most of the agenda items until next week — brought out a mix of people who were almost exactly evenly split in their opinions on the building.

Some favoured its stepped-back design, its potential to bring new residents into the downtown area and the beauty of its front-facing wall of glass.

Opponents lamented the shadows it would cast over the nearby Public Gardens and Victoria Park, and the fact it would tower over the many single-family homes in the neighbouring 200-year-old heritage district some call Schmidtville.

After listening to the speakers, councillors voted 21-1 in favour of the development proposal.

The only dissenter was Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown), whose district will be home to the building.

She based her decision, she said, on the wishes of the people she represents.

Some were concerned about the fate of three historic homes on the building lot whose heritage designation has been applied for but not approved.

The developer has said he would pay to relocate the homes if a suitable placement could be found.

Still, Ms. Sloane said she was "betwixt and between" on making a decision. "Unfortunately, the citizens in my neighbourhood, who have signed a petition with 90 names, told me that they don’t want this in their neighbourhood."

Coun. Sheila Fougere (Connaught-Quinpool) told council she had lived four doors down from the property when she was first married.

It has been little more than a "filthy corner" and a "derelict slum" since then, she said.

"At one point (the three homes) may have been beautiful buildings . . . but they have been quasi-rooming houses surrounded by a dirt parking lot for in excess of 25 years.

"If that’s the kind of stability we want to see in the neighbourhood, that frightens me."

She also said the building’s design could counter the potential of increased wind in the area, a concern raised by several of the speakers during the hearing.

"We have better technology now, there’s better design to mitigate those kinds of issues than when Park Victoria was built, and we’ve seen by the evidence provided to us that has been accounted for in this particular design."

During Tuesday night’s hearing, a few people referred to challenges from heritage groups to downtown development.

"I, as with many, simply abhor the anti-highrise development rhetoric offered by the self-interested few," Patrick LeRoy of Elliott Avenue said.

"But this development would be a further step forward in ensuring revitalization of our urban core."

In an interview, the developer — who said he was surprised by the overwhelming vote in favour of his project — said he’s hopeful that heritage and development can work together.

"It is too bad that always heritage comes out as an adversary to us," Mr. Fares said after the meeting. "I believe there is room for us to work together."

That hope may not be realized too soon.

Phil Pacey, president of Heritage Trust, said after the meeting that the group will continue its battle to support heritage properties.

"We will fight for heritage in this city with every breath that we have. We will not give up. The heritage of this city is far more important than some members of council realize."

( apugsley@herald.ca)

’We will fight for heritage in this city with every breath that we have. We will not give up.’

PHIL PACEYHeritage Trust president

sdm
Jun 11, 2008, 10:35 AM
Well the silly HT better get moving (albeit i have no clue what the grounds will be), i believe the time for appeal is now 14 business days.

Takeo
Jun 11, 2008, 11:05 AM
As for HT, they really didn't have anything to stand on with regards to the appeal of the twisted sisters, but still did it. Now that project is in jepordy in ever being built because of the long duration to be approved.

Just a little nit pick... I know the term has probably stuck... but I wish supporters of the united gulf towers would stop using the term "twisted sisters".

phrenic
Jun 11, 2008, 1:59 PM
Just a little nit pick... I know the term has probably stuck... but I wish supporters of the united gulf towers would stop using the term "twisted sisters".

I think the problem is that most people don't realize that "Twisted Sisters" was a name that was created by the HT and intended to be derogatory toward the project. It doesn't sound all that bad (every time I hear it I think of Dee Snider and the "were not gonna take it" song), and in the absence of a formal name for the project, the media started using it and it stuck.

hfx_chris
Jun 11, 2008, 2:11 PM
Twisted Sisters is probably the more well known name, and I have no problem with it.

Haliguy
Jun 11, 2008, 3:35 PM
I was there tonight. I spoke after Elizabeth Pacey. It was a very interesting debate thats for sure. I was a little worried since there seemed to be a lot of speakers against it. Even though most of their arguments made no sense, and I'm glad that some councilors pointed that out, and voted for the development. Although I must say I was terribly insulted by the man making comments about Toronto, and then took a stab at my education. He called me an architecture student.....I'm sorry, but if you are going to be that rude and insult someone, at least get it right! I'm a planning student, quite a big difference.

As far as sloan goes, well she's always a wildcard. And I do happen to have a friend who will be running against her in the fall election. He's a great guy and could do a lot of good for this city I think.



I think I saw you there. Did Linda Mosher come down to talk to you during the break?

Takeo
Jun 11, 2008, 3:56 PM
Twisted Sisters is probably the more well known name, and I have no problem with it.

Personally... I don't use it. Sounds derogatory to me. But whatever.

HaliStreaks
Jun 11, 2008, 4:43 PM
Hey everyone, glad to hear this got the go-ahead.

I wasn't able to get the word out on the facebook group as I was dealing with the typical stuff involved with moving and seeing a friend off to Texas (yee-haw!) However I've gone and updated the facebook group with the article from the Herald, as well as photos with all the elevations, lighting renders, and those magnificent day and night renders from Fares.

I really hope this spurs a little more positive thinking towards more development on the penninsula... Now if we can only get United Gulf to get their act together and start....

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=34319930634

Jonovision
Jun 12, 2008, 12:55 AM
Yah, that was me Haliguy. She came up and told me I did good and I should join fusion halifax. Where were you sitting?

Spitfire75
Jun 12, 2008, 1:07 AM
’We will fight for heritage in this city with every breath that we have. We will not give up.’

PHIL PACEY Heritage Trust president

*shudder*

Happy this got approved though!

Haliguy
Jun 12, 2008, 2:32 AM
Yah, that was me Haliguy. She came up and told me I did good and I should join fusion halifax. Where were you sitting?

I was sitting towards the back of the room. I didn't stay for the whole thing.

Yeah you should join Fusion. There many different groups within Fusion..one being a group focused on Urban Development.

Dmajackson
Jun 12, 2008, 6:27 PM
Some pictures of the site (by me today):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2572834035_9ab4740277_b.jpg
Walking up Victoria Park. This really proves there is another highrise on that block.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2573656462_6ff5964a28_b.jpg
The three houses to be moved.

I'm not sure how far back this building will streatch but the orange colored building in the first picture is the end of the block. Can't wait to see a crane here!!

sdm
Jun 12, 2008, 10:29 PM
Certainly a good infill, now just build an anchor building at the corner of spring and south park and we are talking density.

Dmajackson
Jun 13, 2008, 1:32 AM
Hopefully some proposal will come up there soon. If not City Pizza could be rebuilt dropping the chances of a proposal. At that corner theres DQ, City Pizza, and one or two homes similar to the ones being moved for the "Trillium".

someone123
Jun 13, 2008, 1:53 AM
Yes, something at Spring Garden and South Park would be good.

Not all of those houses are run down rooming houses. A couple are still in good condition and should be preserved. I also really like the little black house on the corner of Brenton and hope they are able to find a new site for it. It really is a piece of the "old Halifax" that I'm quite fond of, although I don't think it alone is worth holding back a major development for the much larger overall site.

It would be nice if developers got into the habit of shuffling these old houses around to fill in some older neighbourhoods while areas like Spring Garden Road see some modern infill. Lots of streets are missing a house here or there. Of course, there are complicated issues to resolve in terms of land ownership and parking.

someone123
Jul 1, 2008, 5:27 PM
So has the 14 day appeal period passed for this?

Takeo
Jul 1, 2008, 8:16 PM
Are they moving those houses for real? Or was that just talk? Has this even been done in Halifax? If they really are moving them... that would be very cool.

sdm
Jul 2, 2008, 12:25 AM
So has the 14 day appeal period passed for this?

from my knowledge the clock starts as soon as HRM advertises its approval. After that if someone wishes to appeal the development they have 14 business days (was 14 days prior, but my understanding that has been changed).

Jonovision
Jul 13, 2008, 3:22 PM
There was notification of approval in the paper yesterday. So does that mean we still have 14 days to wait?

On another note, perhaps the thread name could be changed, as we now know this is The Trillium.

sdm
Jul 13, 2008, 11:43 PM
There was notification of approval in the paper yesterday. So does that mean we still have 14 days to wait?

On another note, perhaps the thread name could be changed, as we now know this is The Trillium.

Yup notice written, appeal opportunity is 14 business days.

Haliguy
Jul 14, 2008, 1:24 PM
Isn't 14 days after council approves it. I''m sure thats the way it was for the Twisted Sisters. If not why did it take so long for the notices of approval to come out.

sdm
Jul 14, 2008, 4:46 PM
Isn't 14 days after council approves it. I''m sure thats the way it was for the Twisted Sisters. If not why did it take so long for the notices of approval to come out.

It has always been 14 days from public notice of approval, not 14 days as from its approval in cambers.

Recently this has been changed to 14 business days, from 14 days.

worldlyhaligonian
Jul 14, 2008, 8:16 PM
when are they looking to break ground once the 14 days are up?

Jonovision
Jul 14, 2008, 9:21 PM
All they've said is this fall. So maybe sept? but who knows. They still have to get rid of the houses on the site too.

sdm
Jul 15, 2008, 12:10 AM
when are they looking to break ground once the 14 days are up?

Taking assumptions here, but once they are through the appeal option period, assuming no appeal of course, they will most likely start their construction plans and then begin the cost/tendering process. It is at that time they will learn the cost and develop the proforma in order to see if the development is economically feasible.

Its then when they decide if they wish to begin. I would figure they are really looking at spring, as winter construction is typically not favorable.

someone123
Jul 15, 2008, 4:52 AM
Since it's condos they would presumably have to pre-sell a significant number of them and it is unlikely that this would happen by the fall given the fact that they claim not to have finished their design and planning work.

It seems like every developer in Halifax says their project will start "in the fall" or something similar and then in reality it takes anywhere from months to years for construction to begin.

worldlyhaligonian
Jul 15, 2008, 12:55 PM
Yes, this "in the fall" scenario has played out many times, usually starting earliest in the following spring.

I'm suprised to hear that such development wouldn't have all the pro forma financials done beforehand. I hope all the downtown development in the works is feasible.

worldlyhaligonian
Jul 15, 2008, 4:01 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2670589412_894cd15117_b.jpg

About time those houses are gone, I drove by the other day and they looked like shit. Esp. with the canadian idol graf on them.

Spitfire75
Jul 15, 2008, 10:19 PM
lol, we had an anonymous protest here? I had no idea.

Takeo
Jul 16, 2008, 12:31 AM
Honk honk.

HaliStreaks
Jul 17, 2008, 2:56 PM
lol, we had an anonymous protest here? I had no idea.

We've had lots...

sdm
Jul 17, 2008, 3:04 PM
So where we at, 10 days left for an appeal?

Jonovision
Jul 19, 2008, 4:42 PM
Sadly there is 14 days left. The Herald printed the notification prematurely. There was a new notice in the paper today informing that last week's notice was a misprint and this weeks is the actual thing. so still another two weeks to go.

Haliguy
Jul 19, 2008, 6:25 PM
That's annoying!

hfx_chris
Jul 20, 2008, 11:37 PM
Honk

Haliguy
Aug 8, 2008, 2:50 PM
So are the 14 business days for appeal up yet?

Wishblade
Aug 8, 2008, 3:36 PM
So is are the 14 business days for appeal up yet?

judging from the date on Jonovisions post, I would say yes.

worldlyhaligonian
Aug 8, 2008, 6:09 PM
Yay.

Dmajackson
Aug 8, 2008, 6:38 PM
Hopefully thet remove that graffiti before they move those houses...

Hooray! This was the one i really wanted to get through :D

spaustin
Aug 9, 2008, 1:18 AM
Hopefully thet remove that graffiti before they move those houses...

Hooray! This was the one i really wanted to get through :D

If they move the houses. The developer was very careful and very smart to say they want to move the houses and they will contribute to doing so without making a definite promise. I'm glad this one didn't get appealed. Out of all that's come up lately I think this one has the most promise.

Dmajackson
Aug 18, 2008, 4:22 AM
Ummm...I hate to say it but the appeal period might not be over after all. The Herald posted the approval notice again...

someone123
Aug 20, 2008, 5:13 AM
Who knows? I would guess that the Herald could goof up and re-print the same ad, but if some notice already ran publicly then the URB would just throw out an appeal. This is particularly true for a group like the HT that has no excuse for not knowing about the project. I don't expect they're interested in appealing anyway. It's a nice project, they know they were grasping, and they have other things to focus on.

Haliguy
Aug 22, 2008, 4:03 PM
Status Update

The amendments to the Halifax MPS and LUB were received by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and were reviewed as per Section 208 of the Municipal Government Act. The amendments were approved and are in effect as of August 9, 2008, the date of the publication of the approval notice in the Chronicle Herald newspaper.


As noted in the March 28, 2008 report, the next step in the process was for staff to bring the matter back to Regional Council for a decision on the development agreement. Regional Council approved the development agreement on August 12, 2008.

sdm
Aug 26, 2008, 1:20 AM
article in the allnovascotia claiming any appeal on this development must be made by this friday. Obviously the article centres around Heritage trust, which of the opinion of the author has some decisions to make as they consider appealling this development as well as the Halikirk development.

This could be very interesting as it appears there are many battles brewing.

worldlyhaligonian
Aug 26, 2008, 3:58 AM
Yeah eh? :brickwall:

sdm
Aug 26, 2008, 12:18 PM
Yeah eh? :brickwall:

Could get worse yet with Heritage trust, this project, Halkirk, waterside centre, corner of morris and hollis, the Roy building, and Kings Wharf.

Seems lots of fights brewing.

Takeo
Aug 26, 2008, 4:27 PM
Could get worse yet with Heritage trust, this project, Halkirk, waterside centre, corner of morris and hollis, the Roy building, and Kings Wharf.

Yes. The HT is against every single one of those projects I believe. The most mystifying one to me is Kings Wharf. Why would a so-called heritage group fight against a beautiful waterfront development on acres of derelict industrial wasteland?

Wishblade
Aug 26, 2008, 6:13 PM
Well, I'm starting to see advertising for this development on metro transit busses now, so that must be a good sign.

I honestly don't think this will be appealed though. they've had forever to put one together, and we've heard nothing out of the HT about it. It's not like they have much ground to stand on with it anyway.

Dmajackson
Aug 26, 2008, 6:48 PM
I think they will save their fighting power for the waterfront centre and maybe the Alexander.

Wishblade
Aug 26, 2008, 7:43 PM
Yes. The HT is against every single one of those projects I believe. The most mystifying one to me is Kings Wharf. Why would a so-called heritage group fight against a beautiful waterfront development on acres of derelict industrial wasteland?

Whatever they try, I don't think its going to work. This is another project that they don't have much to stand on with. And not only that, but even the surrounding residents and the members at brightwood think it should be built. And it's certainly not affecting any heritage properties, which should be enough reason to cut them out of it completely.

Wishblade
Aug 26, 2008, 8:04 PM
also, just incase anybody hasnt come accross it, the website for this project is

www.thetrillium.ca

There isnt much on it right now, but I'm sure thats coming soon

phrenic
Aug 26, 2008, 9:37 PM
I can't see the HT appealing this. I don't know what their operating budget, if any, is like, but apparently they wasted a lot of money on the UG appeal process.

spaustin
Aug 27, 2008, 12:46 AM
Could get worse yet with Heritage trust, this project, Halkirk, waterside centre, corner of morris and hollis, the Roy building, and Kings Wharf.

Seems lots of fights brewing.

I actually think they have a point regarding Waterside Centre and possibly the Roy Building. Not every project is a good one. Supporting every development is just the flip side of opposing everything.

Takeo
Aug 27, 2008, 9:36 AM
I actually think they have a point regarding Waterside Centre and possibly the Roy Building. Not every project is a good one. Supporting every development is just the flip side of opposing everything.

I agree. Everything should be judged on it's merits. I don't support either of those two projects.

terrynorthend
Aug 27, 2008, 2:55 PM
Haha, I noticed some of our forumers are at the head of the comment list on CH again. This instance, following an article about a gentleman (Kempton?) who wants to see it more difficult for the city to issue demolition permits for registered heritage buildings. I was pleased to see our comments in favour of strengthening heritage property protection, and as an attack on HT for their ridiculous focus on vigorously protecting parking lots, vacant lots and derelict industrial lands. Good on you!!

Takeo
Aug 27, 2008, 3:38 PM
I was pleased to see our comments in favour of strengthening heritage property protection, and as an attack on HT for their ridiculous focus on vigorously protecting parking lots, vacant lots and derelict industrial lands. Good on you!!

Shoot... I've been made :P LOL. I guess one could say that the 'protecting parking lots' comment is a cheap shot... except that it's TRUE!!!

phrenic
Aug 28, 2008, 12:58 PM
If anyone wants to look at the floorplans, the username is guest and password is trillium08.

The Penthouse looks nicccccccce. 5012 Sq/ft.

sdm
Aug 28, 2008, 1:02 PM
If anyone wants to look at the floorplans, the username is guest and password is trillium08.

The Penthouse looks nicccccccce. 5012 Sq/ft.

Sure does.

I am sure the councilors are requesting this be affordable....

Wishblade
Aug 28, 2008, 7:54 PM
Sure does.

I am sure the councilors are requesting this be affordable....

I wouldnt be surprised if that penthouse went for a good 2.5 or 3 million.

Empire
Aug 29, 2008, 3:03 AM
I actually think they have a point regarding Waterside Centre and possibly the Roy Building. Not every project is a good one. Supporting every development is just the flip side of opposing everything.

Very good point. Both Waterside Centre and the Roy Building are very bad proposals. We need to max. out opportunity sites like Tex Park and all of the area north of Young St. for intense development. There are still many sites downtown that can handle highrise developmnet without destroying buildings that in the end will be better than the new structures.

sdm
Aug 29, 2008, 10:16 AM
Very good point. Both Waterside Centre and the Roy Building are very bad proposals. We need to max. out opportunity sites like Tex Park and all of the area north of Young St. for intense development. There are still many sites downtown that can handle highrise developmnet without destroying buildings that in the end will be better than the new structures.

Mr. Empire, i would like to ask why you consider The Roy Building and Waterside Centre as bad proposals?

Empire
Aug 29, 2008, 12:32 PM
Mr. Empire, i would like to ask why you consider The Roy Building and Waterside Centre as bad proposals?

There are a few sites where restoration should be attempted and these are two of them. I think the Waterside site should be restored as is but the Roy building site could be done like founders square. Those building facades are original and really add to the streetscape. It would be a challange but all or part of the facade of the Roy building on Barrington should be saved.

sdm
Aug 29, 2008, 1:00 PM
There are a few sites where restoration should be attempted and these are two of them. I think the Waterside site should be restored as is but the Roy building site could be done like founders square. Those building facades are original and really add to the streetscape. It would be a challange but all or part of the facade of the Roy building on Barrington should be saved.

But what if its uneconomical to restore? Its very evident that at least for the Waterside proposal that one if not two buildings have significant structural issues.

Empire
Aug 29, 2008, 6:32 PM
They are uneconomical to restore into Class 'A' office space. Other uses have to be found and if funding is necessary then that should be the next step for the city, province HRM by design etc.

sdm
Aug 29, 2008, 7:47 PM
They are unenocimical to restore into Class 'A' office space. Other uses have to be found and if funding is necessary then that should be the next step for the city, province HRM by design etc.

Even to modern day levels they are still uneconomical.

Spitfire75
Aug 30, 2008, 1:25 AM
What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.

Wishblade
Aug 30, 2008, 2:52 AM
What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.

I think he means that something taller could be built in its place, thus making it more economically viable.

Takeo
Aug 30, 2008, 3:02 AM
I think he means that something taller could be built in its place, thus making it more economically viable.

I think that when it comes to certain projects, we have to decide that the easy money (aka "economically viable") is less important that other less tangible and long term benefits like heritage preservation and tourism, etc. It would be criminal to gut the Imperial Oil building or even worse, demo the whole thing and rebuild a replica.

Haliguy
Aug 30, 2008, 12:44 PM
What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.


So how does this make it economical for the developer or do you suggest the city buys and fixes them up?

spaustin
Aug 30, 2008, 12:55 PM
So how does this make it economical for the developer or do you suggest the city buys and fixes them up?

None of these buildings are so far gone that something can't be done. Developers naturally look for the greatest return and that seems to be, unfortunately, "knock them down and start again." However, the role of the city is to regulate and here's a case where it's perfectly acceptable to say the greater public good doesn't conform to your plans, you'll have to settle for a smaller return. I don't think any of these buildings are too far gone to do something with considering what has previously been restored and made successful. That said, I think the city should play a greater role in these cases. Not actually buying the buildings or anything but through tax incentives and restoration programs to give the developers greater incentive to preserve rather than destroy and to help tip the economic scale a little bit more in heritage's favour.

sdm
Aug 30, 2008, 1:37 PM
None of these buildings are so far gone that something can't be done. Developers naturally look for the greatest return and that seems to be, unfortunately, "knock them down and start again." However, the role of the city is to regulate and here's a case where it's perfectly acceptable to say the greater public good doesn't conform to your plans, you'll have to settle for a smaller return. I don't think any of these buildings are too far gone to do something with considering what has previously been restored and made successful. That said, I think the city should play a greater role in these cases. Not actually buying the buildings or anything but through tax incentives and restoration programs to give the developers greater incentive to preserve rather than destroy and to help tip the economic scale a little bit more in heritage's favour.

I would be more then willing to debate this subject further, but think we should move that discussion to another tread as it has no relavance to this project.

terrynorthend
Aug 30, 2008, 3:33 PM
True. This is the Trillium thread after all. Any word on appeals yet?

Dmajackson
Aug 30, 2008, 3:55 PM
I haven't heard anything about an apppeal and someone posted earlier that they only had until yesterday so hopefully we are actually in the clear this time.

Good news is "the notic of approval" wasn't in todays Herald :)

terrynorthend
Aug 30, 2008, 4:52 PM
I haven't heard anything about an apppeal and someone posted earlier that they only had until yesterday so hopefully we are actually in the clear this time.

Good news is "the notic of approval" wasn't in todays Herald :)

Yay! those recurring "notice of approval(s)" were starting to feel like a sick version of the old joke, "Tomorrow? But when Tomorrow gets here it will be Today AGAIN!!"

sdm
Sep 2, 2008, 1:14 AM
It appears no notice of appeal was filed. However there is a article in allnovascotia.com stating there will be a new organization formed, friends of schmidtville which will hold its first meeting Tuesday. It appears they are going to push for a heritage district and try and influence what gets built on NSLC site along with the parking lots owned by HRM. It states the area encompasses Cylde, morris, south park, breton, birmingham, sackville, dresden row and spring garden road........

There goes the idea of height for any of the parking lots or even the former Infirmary lands...

terrynorthend
Sep 2, 2008, 1:55 AM
Friggin' Schmidtville.. It even sounds made up. I'm gonna declare the North End TerryLand and secede!! BANANA!

Takeo
Sep 2, 2008, 3:11 AM
Forming a heritage district for so-called Schmitville... great. All for it. Including surface parking lots within the protected area... wrong. I'm all for protecting the houses... but don't mess with the future development of the opportunity sites. I have a feeling they will be more interested in the latter.

Dmajackson
Sep 2, 2008, 4:17 AM
Great the one of the few areas of downtown with a decent height limit by HRM by Design now having a proyective group...

I do see why Schmidtville should be a heritage district but only the three blocks should be protected and watched over by this group (Clyde-Morris-Queen-Brenton). The area to the north is very different from this district and while i do think they should be protected SGR should be allowed to grow into a modern area with high-rises.

The houses should be saved. They are historic and are one of the few areas not destroyed by the halifax explosion. This group needs to realize, though, that SGR lost its history a long-time ago and that their neighbourhood is in the middle of an urban area. Not allowing high-rises nearby would do two bad things to this area;

1) it would make the neighbourhood much more expensive to live in (mainly propoerty tax) since there is more people trying to move in, and

2) it would create more pressure to develop in and around this area and since high-rises would be deterred more ugly short buildings would appear.

phrenic
Sep 2, 2008, 12:10 PM
It states the area encompasses Cylde, morris, south park, breton, birmingham, sackville, dresden row and spring garden road........

If they had said Clyde to South st, bounded by South Park and Queen, then sure - that area should have protection.

But leave the damn parking lots be.