Drum Condominiums | ? m | 6 fl | Proposed

[someone123]

Here's a rendering of the proposed six-storey Drum condominiums on Rainnie Drive:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/5447378560_0afbdbb898_b.jpg

Presumably more information will be up on the HRM website soon since this is going through HRM by Design.

[halifaxboyns]

The drawing doesn't look too bad - I like the 'bulb' shape at the front - but I'd rather one bank of continuous windows (rather than a whole bunch of smaller ones). But without seeing an internal layout, there may be a reason for it. Where on Rainnie is this going?

[someone123]

It's the "flatiron" lot where Rainnie Drive and Cogswell converge -- a very prominent lot that has seen a few similar proposals over the years.

Here's an old rendering from another proposal in 2005:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/47594512/medium.jpg

The area around the Commons is really coming together with lots of new buildings.

[halifaxboyns]

It's the "flatiron" lot where Rainnie Drive and Cogswell converge -- a very prominent lot that has seen a few similar proposals over the years.

Here's an old rendering from another proposal in 2005:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/47594512/medium.jpg

The area around the Commons is really coming together with lots of new buildings.

Oh okay - the triangle lot behind the Pool.
Isn't the second picture the Timikolis project that got torpedoed after his development just by the commons bombed?

[someone123]

Yep, that's the one. I like the new design more.

[Empire]

This is shaping up to be a very cheap looking building. The precast panels on the lower level and the x out design on the out of sync bulb don't do the site justice.

[terrynorthend]

What's with the creepy old man in the rendering? :banana:

[-Harlington-]

Posted by Jonovision in general updates and news thread :


AllNS was reporting today that Danny Chedraw is ready to start construction on a 6 storey condo building on the triangle piece of land beside the citadel adjacent to the commons. He is waiting for HRM By Design approval and if all goes well will start construction in the summer.

[beyeas]

This is shaping up to be a very cheap looking building. The precast panels on the lower level and the x out design on the out of sync bulb don't do the site justice.

in AllNS he claims it will use brick and real stone, with natural gas heating and rain water collection for grey water usage.

remains to be seen though in the more detailed renderings how much stone etc actually gets used relative to precast.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What's with the creepy old man in the rendering? :banana:

I thought the same exact thing... why on earth would they use that guy.

This should be 4-5 floors taller.

[Empire]

The previous design was much better plus it was 9fl. Thanks to the STV crowd the first design was axed now they can wear it.

The previous design looked like a downtown building and this one looks like Bedford or Portland Hills.

[sdm]

The previous design was much better plus it was 9fl. Thanks to the STV crowd the first design was axed now they can wear it.

The previous design looked like a downtown building and this one looks like Bedford or Portland Hills.

agreed, the current proposal looks like garbage.

[someone123]

They say brick and stone but it may be bad reporting or some kind of mix up. My guess is the developer says "it'll be just like sandstone!" and that becomes "stone", although who knows what happened in this case. That is an unlikely building material.

It's possible that HbD will improve upon this design. To be attractive I think it needs a more open ground floor level (no recessed lobby -- looks like there's no commercial, just ground floor condos). The proportions of the circular tower component also look off to me and I doubt the X pattern will come out well, though if it's brick it could be okay.

[Empire]

They say brick and stone but it may be bad reporting or some kind of mix up. My guess is the developer says "it'll be just like sandstone!" and that becomes "stone", although who knows what happened in this case. That is an unlikely building material.

It's possible that HbD will improve upon this design. To be attractive I think it needs a more open ground floor level (no recessed lobby -- looks like there's no commercial, just ground floor condos). The proportions of the circular tower component also look off to me and I doubt the X pattern will come out well, though if it's brick it could be okay.

Even though this will go through the HxD "design review committe" changes are unlikely. The design review committee doesn't actually review the design from an aesthetics perspective. We have done more on this thread then they will do. This design is typical of what has been slipping throught he cracks for years in HFX. For this location I would give this design a ZERO.

[GUB]

This condo is crud.
On top of the dislikes previously mentioned by others, I dislike the pillars below the circular 'tower'.

[Empire]

This condo is crud.
On top of the dislikes previously mentioned by others, I dislike the pillars below the circular 'tower'.

You know the pillars will be exposed concrete with air pockets and bits of concrete form stuck in the unfinished mess for years. This building needs a 100% redesign.......who is the architect? I think we should start sending links to this forum to architects who subscribe this this sort of demolishing of the urban landscape.

[Jstaleness]

It's the "flatiron" lot where Rainnie Drive and Cogswell converge -- a very prominent lot that has seen a few similar proposals over the years.

Here's an old rendering from another proposal in 2005:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/47594512/medium.jpg

The area around the Commons is really coming together with lots of new buildings.

Too bad this wasn't built. It would have maintained the "older" feel of Halifax but added needed population downtown.
I'm a drummer but I do not like the new design at all. Reminds me of the Faulkland development.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=139986&page=5

[Keith P.]

You know the pillars will be exposed concrete with air pockets and bits of concrete form stuck in the unfinished mess for years. This building needs a 100% redesign.......who is the architect? I think we should start sending links to this forum to architects who subscribe this this sort of demolishing of the urban landscape.

I think I read it was Kassner Goodspeed. There was a reference to Paul Goodspeed in the allnovascotia article.

[someone123]

It is similar to the Lexington, another Kassner-Goodspeed project.

In spite of the criticisms I do think it will be good for the area since it is much better than a decades-old empty lot. Increasing the population density in the core is very important.

[Dmajackson]

Sign erected on site. Notice the abscense of a creepy old man in the rendering;

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5138/5449666475_db38f68a3d_z.jpg

[JustinMacD]

Should be taller.

[GUB]

It is similar to the Lexington, another Kassner-Goodspeed project.

In spite of the criticisms I do think it will be good for the area since it is much better than a decades-old empty lot. Increasing the population density in the core is very important.

I do agree with you re: empty lots & increasing downtown population, but why does it seem whenever there is an average/subpar development proposal, it is justified by the need for increased density at all costs no matter what kind of building goes up? Do we just have to accept that we are in Halifax and that these buildings are the norm? I think we can do better.

[someone123]

It's not a justification. It's just important to have a sense of perspective.

[Jstaleness]

So the sign is up already. Rarely do signs go up unless there is a really good chance of being built. Has this already been approved?

[Empire]

I do agree with you re: empty lots & increasing downtown population, but why does it seem whenever there is an average/subpar development proposal, it is justified by the need for increased density at all costs no matter what kind of building goes up? Do we just have to accept that we are in Halifax and that these buildings are the norm? I think we can do better.

I would sooner see a lot stay empty than populate it with a permanent eyesore. This mediocre development phase in Halifax has been lasting far too long.

[someone123]

Buildings like this aren't any more permanent in Halifax than empty lots. Some lots have been around for 60 years or longer. My guess is that this one is one of those.

[fenwick16]

I like the general shape. What should be done to make the exterior more acceptable?

[Jstaleness]

I like the general shape. What should be done to make the exterior more acceptable?

The X stitching needs to go. Also if the brick lines could run vertical instead of horizontal that might help too. It looks like cakes stacked on each other in the rendering.

[worldlyhaligonian]

So the sign is up already. Rarely do signs go up unless there is a really good chance of being built. Has this already been approved?

Well, the sign for the previous proposal on this site (Almathea or whatever) was up for ages and yet it is still an vacant lot.

I liked the old design.

[Jonovision]

Condos ‘gateway to downtown’

44-unit complex would overlook Halifax Commons


By BRUCE ERSKINE

Business Reporter

Halifax developer Danny Chedrawe may be excused for beating his own drum about a new condominium project his company is building across from Citadel Hill.

“There’s nothing like it in Halifax," the president of Westwood Developments Ltd ., said Wednesday in an interview.

Westwood plans to begin construction of the Drum, as it has been dubbed, in June, pending final municipal approval.

The six-storey, 44-unit, flatiron-style building, which gets its moniker from a cylinder at one end, will sit on a wedge of land near Centennial Pool bounded by Rainnie Drive, North Park Street and Cog­swell Street.

“It’s the gateway to the downtown," said Chedrawe.

The stone and brick development, which overlooks the Halifax Commons, is in keep­ing with the history of the location, he said. “It’s a unique property, a rare opportuni­ty to own land by Citadel Hill.

“We’ve never built anything like this.

We’re quite excited."

Westwood has another project in the preliminary stages that is planned for the site of Cruikshank’s Funeral Home on Robie Street. Chedrawe’s company bought the site late last year from the property’s former Texas owners.

“It’s a great site for a residential devel­opment," said Chedrawe. Westwood plans to build condominiums that cost in the range of $250,000 to $500,000 on the 18,000-square-foot site, also overlooking the Commons.

“It’s prime real estate. There’s good de­mand."

Westwood will hold public meetings to gauge public opinion about the devel­opment in March and April before sub­mitting a proposal to municipal planners in May.

But Chedrawe said he envisions a six- to 12-storey development that won’t be as tall as the adjacent 17-storey Welsford apart­ment building.

“We have no plans to go to the height of the Welsford."

Chedrawe expects the approval process for the funeral home development will take a year and that construction could begin in the summer of 2012.

The 22,000-square-foot Gladstone North apartment complex Westwood is building at Almon and Gladstone streets is under construction and scheduled to be finished in September.

The company also has two major com­mercial projects under development in the Spring Garden Road area.

They include a 25,000-square-foot glass building at the corner of Spring Garden Road and Birmingham Street that will house a TD Canada Trust branch and a hotel-condominium-retail complex front­ing Spring Garden Road and bordered by Brunswick, Queen and Doyle streets.

(berskine@herald.ca)

[GUB]

It's not a justification. It's just important to have a sense of perspective.

Thanks for the perspective

[Empire]

I like the general shape. What should be done to make the exterior more acceptable?

Improvements can be made by eliminating the features that make it a poor design:

- x-out brick design must go
- layered brick design must go....have a look at the ugliest building in HRM, Churchill Apts. a tin layer cake
http://maps.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=44.641075,-63.573772&spn=0,0.003412&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll= 44.641109,-63.57365&panoid=FQ9wqbcOqlmNb6Wln7Gu3A&cbp=12,156.08,,0,-17.5
- turf the bland slider windows
- open area unter Rotunda is very stark c/w stark concrete wall
- poured concrete pillars are tacky and will look like they belong in an u/g parking garage
- precast trim on lower level would work better on a surburban strip mall....although I wouldn't wish it on them
- the thoughtless mix of styles and textures are confusing to look at and should be stopped by HxD design review committee

[macgregor]

Well, the sign for the previous proposal on this site (Almathea or whatever) was up for ages and yet it is still an vacant lot.

I liked the old design.

It doesn't take much to put a sign up, but following the business for a while it become obvious which builders/developers know how to deliver. I'm not sure what Almathea has built, but Westwood is getting things done. (Although with their past work I would expect better quality for this project).

From the buyer's point of view too, for pre-sales I would feel much safer pre buying from Westwood or Fares than most other groups. Like that new one on Barrington, a no-name builder....questionable.

[Takeo]

That is one breathtakingly hideous building. How does this kind of utter trash keep getting built in Halifax? Total embarrassment. Especially for such a prime location.

[sk8tr]

Is it too much to hope for something a bit more like this? (he Gooderham building in Toronto, one of my favourites)

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/06/01/12/

[sk8tr]

Oops, here's the link for the Gooderham:

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/2006/01/flat_iron_building_pc.jpg

[Grav]

Im also going to have to agree that the old design was way better. The brick used, the old trim along the roof top and the corner retail looking structure are reminiscent of something built in the 1920's or 30's. Beautiful and timeless,(edit: just like that gooderham building above) especially with large tree's near by.

The new design is more modern. But I don't believe it will hold up over the years like the old one. Its not really nice looking to begin with.

Also, the X designs really do make it look like a drum. Very tacky, but thats my personal opinion.

[macgregor]

Im also going to have to agree that the old design was way better. The brick used, the old trim along the roof top and the corner retail looking structure are reminiscent of something built in the 1920's or 30's. Beautiful and timeless,(edit: just like that gooderham building above) especially with large tree's near by.

The new design is more modern. But I don't believe it will hold up over the years like the old one. Its not really nice looking to begin with.

Also, the X designs really do make it look like a drum. Very tacky, but thats my personal opinion.

I can't think of any circular building that looks good off the top of my head. Maybe circles just look bad. Can anyone thing of any attractive circle buildings?

[halifaxboyns]

Im also going to have to agree that the old design was way better. The brick used, the old trim along the roof top and the corner retail looking structure are reminiscent of something built in the 1920's or 30's. Beautiful and timeless,(edit: just like that gooderham building above) especially with large tree's near by.

The new design is more modern. But I don't believe it will hold up over the years like the old one. Its not really nice looking to begin with.

Also, the X designs really do make it look like a drum. Very tacky, but thats my personal opinion.

Agreed - this is a total disappointment for a site that is located on such a prominant site. This is an entry for goodness sake - this requires good quality design. I wonder if because he has so many projects going, he just doesn't have the $ to go good quality in this situation? Or if it's a matter that the other projects he has going are such a financial drain that he needs something simple and quick? I think someone else earlier might have asked that?

[Empire]

Agreed - this is a total disappointment for a site that is located on such a prominant site. This is an entry for goodness sake - this requires good quality design. I wonder if because he has so many projects going, he just doesn't have the $ to go good quality in this situation? Or if it's a matter that the other projects he has going are such a financial drain that he needs something simple and quick? I think someone else earlier might have asked that?

I think it is because he does doesn't know what good design is?

[Empire]

That is one breathtakingly hideous building. How does this kind of utter trash keep getting built in Halifax? Total embarrassment. Especially for such a prime location.

It is Mickey Mouse at best. I think we should make a list of list of what we think is wrong and email the list and the link to this thread to the architect....we could attach the forum names of those who agree. It could be our own forum design review committee....if we don't do it no one else will!

This building is a disgrace and STV are mostly to blame.

- x-out brick design must go
- layered brick design must go....have a look at the ugliest building in HRM, Churchill Apts. a tin layer cake
http://maps.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=44.641075,-63.573772&spn=0,0.003412&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll= 44.641109,-63.57365&panoid=FQ9wqbcOqlmNb6Wln7Gu3A&cbp=12,156.08,,0,-17.5
- turf the bland slider windows
- open area unter Rotunda is very stark c/w stark concrete wall
- poured concrete pillars are tacky and will look like they belong in an u/g parking garage
- precast trim on lower level would work better on a surburban strip mall....although I wouldn't wish it on themstopped by HxD design review
- the thoughtless mix of styles and textures are confusing to look at and should be committee

[Keith P.]

Danny Chedrawe of Westwood is one of the better developers in town in terms of being a regular guy. While his early efforts were nothing to write home about, I think he knows what he doesn't know and is open to credible input.

While I can understand the desire to have a circular form instead of a triangular point at the narrow end of the lot to maximize saleable space, this just looks hideous.

[Jstaleness]

I can't think of any circular building that looks good off the top of my head. Maybe circles just look bad. Can anyone thing of any attractive circle buildings?

Would Absolute World in Mississauga count as round?

The General Motors Building in Detroit?

[Empire]

Would Absolute World in Mississauga count as round?

The General Motors Building in Detroit?

or the leaning tower of Pisa....

[fenwick16]

Would Absolute World in Mississauga count as round?

The General Motors Building in Detroit?

I get to see Absolute World in Mississauga a few times a month. It certainly stands out but it looks much better in renderings than in real life. It is unique and attracts ones attention but I don't think it is an architectural gem. It is more of a "what the ..." type of building.

This is one of the better views.
(source: http://urbantoronto.ca/content.php?1667-Fernbrook-Cityzen-s-Absolute-World-Condos-Tower-5-About-to-Top-Off )
I hope no Mississaugians are reading this.

I like the Marina City Buildings in Chicago - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Marinacity466.JPG/450px-Marinacity466.JPG

[dmac26]

The agree with the above comment about looking back at many of the older 1920s and 1930s building in Halifax alone (and even older in other cities). There is so much inspiration that could be drawn from older architecture, even if you put a modern spin on it.

Look at these examples:http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/25138477.jpg
photo credit:geojack

http://manchesterhistory.net/manchester/gone/victoriabuilding1.jpg
photo credit:http://manchesterhistory.net

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2263920328_80e78bc061.jpg
photo credit:tobybear

[someone123]

Danny Chedrawe of Westwood is one of the better developers in town in terms of being a regular guy. While his early efforts were nothing to write home about, I think he knows what he doesn't know and is open to credible input.

While I can understand the desire to have a circular form instead of a triangular point at the narrow end of the lot to maximize saleable space, this just looks hideous.

I think the large circular portion would look better if it were counter-balanced by something at the other end of the development, but with the stupid height and density limits that's not really possible.

My guess with this development, along with many others, is that there are many architectural improvements that could be made without adding significantly to the cost. In other words, it should be possible to convince the developer to improve the design. :)

[Keith P.]

I think an art deco-inspired design would work well here. Imagine something reminiscent of the CBC building on Sackville St, with its white finish, shaped to fit this lot. Something like that might look good on that lot and be very distinctive for this town.

[macgregor]

Thanks for the pictures and examples. I guess it's circles can work, but not like the one in Clayton Park at Dunbrack @ Willett.

- The absoluteworld is neat.
- So is the tower in Pisa, or the Colosseum
- In dmac's pictures, the second one is about the same size as the drum building, but looks way better.

The first set of balconies here really emphasize the round part. That's probably the point, but it makes the whole side section of the building look smaller and narrower than the "drum". Maybe this emphasis could be removed to make the side section fuller. Losing the setback final floor might help too.

[Takeo]

I can't think of any circular building that looks good off the top of my head. Maybe circles just look bad. Can anyone thing of any attractive circle buildings?

Umm... the Guggenheim in NYC? :o)

It's not the circle... it's the proportions. It's lots of other details too (materials, cheesy X patterns, that drive thru entry area)... but mostly it's the proportions. In other words, I feel the design is fundamentally flawed.

[bluenoser]

Sign erected on site. Notice the abscense of a creepy old man in the rendering;
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5138/5449666475_db38f68a3d_z.jpg

So the sign is up already. Rarely do signs go up unless there is a really good chance of being built. Has this already been approved?

Strange story...

Developer can't promote condo project
City: Building can’t be advertised before plan gets the green light
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Thu, Sep 22 - 4:55 AM

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/stories/photos/ARC_tk121207chedrawe_Provincial_09-22-11_22JB55R.jpg
Danny Chedrawe of Westwood Developments had to take down a billboard advertising his proposed condominium development after Halifax planning officials threatened to fine him for advertising a project that is still awaiting approval. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff)

DEVELOPER DANNY CHEDRAWE is beating the war drum against Halifax city hall over a dust-up involving a sign promoting his proposed condo project beside Citadel Hill.

Workers removed the billboard Wednesday after Chedrawe’s lawyers got a letter threatening to fine him because the condo project — a six-storey, 44-unit, flatiron-style building to be called Drum — has yet to get the green light from officials with Halifax Regional Municipality.

"Unfortunately, a planner at the city — this is how progressive our city is — complained about the sign and they’re forcing us to take it down because we don’t have an approved project yet, so we cannot advertise it," said the president of Westwood Developments Ltd.

"That’s how crazy it is. The city is anti-anti-progressive. It’s no fault of individuals. It’s just the overall environment there is not to help people. It’s ‘How do we put hurdles in their way?’ "

...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1264476.html

"They’re forcing me to take the sign down because somebody at city hall says, technically, it shouldn’t be up. Well, technically, my ass. I’m trying to do what they’ve been out there preaching for the last two years. We need development downtown. We need people living downtown. It’s great for the economy. It’s great for the environment. It’s great for everyone in HRM. And here I am trying to do it and they continue to put these hurdles in my way. I’m totally frustrated."

[Jstaleness]

I feel for this guy. While I don't agree that design is the right one for that location, something needs to happen. He's right. City officials want business downtown to thrive but won't let anyone live there. It takes 5 frigging years to get a 6 storey built. Let me write that again. 6 Storey. I don't have the answers but enough is enough. I guess it's up to us forum members to hit these meetings and give them hell. Unless all the city officials feel like travelling to the west to visit their grand kids. That's where they are going to end up.

[halifaxboyns]

I feel for this guy. While I don't agree that design is the right one for that location, something needs to happen. He's right. City officials want business downtown to thrive but won't let anyone live there. It takes 5 frigging years to get a 6 storey built. Let me write that again. 6 Storey. I don't have the answers but enough is enough. I guess it's up to us forum members to hit these meetings and give them hell. Unless all the city officials feel like travelling to the west to visit their grand kids. That's where they are going to end up.

Well if their is no application in; sorry as a planner I don't think the sign should be up. It's one thing if he just put the sign up because he's being issued a permit today (that I wouldn't care); but there is always the possibility that a permit may be refused, sparking an appeal. If it's as of right; the process gets longer if a variance to certain requirements is required as well.

The zoning process is very process oriented - you can't approved a permit where a height variance is required; until the variance is approved and the appeal permit is passed. On the flip side, the Calgary LUB (which is a development control bylaw) allows a planner to approve a permit with a height variance in the permit itself; so the whole development is approved with the increase in height. The only catch to that style system is that if someone appeals the height variance in Calgary; the whole development becomes subject to an appeal. If the appeal board agrees the height variance is a bad idea, out goes the development. Where as with the zoning system; if the height variance isn't approved by council (if appealed); the developer has the choice to redesign the building to meet the regular rule, or take a refusal to the UARB.

While the Calgary system may seem better upfront (because the whole thing can be dealt with at once) - the back end appeal process can be tricky and put everything on the line.

Plus, let's be realistic: he's done literally dozens of projects so he knows the rules. He should've known better - this shouldn't be a surprise to him.

[someone123]

He hasn't done dozens of HRM by Design projects, and one of his problems stems from a new HbD rule. Keep in mind, he's a developer, not a professional bureaucrat whose job it is to keep track of all these rules.

I have sympathy for the developer. From a planner's perspective this story revolves around planning, but from the developer's perspective he's probably wondering why he has to deal with all this and can't just get on with building something the market wants and the city says it wants.

To be honest I think the whole "play by the rules" ("it's clearly written on page 793, subsection 29(A), paragraph 3, that you may or may not be allowed to do something like this") bureaucrat mentality is flawed. Planners exist to facilitate good development; their processes can be judged by how seamlessly they guide developers toward building good projects. That is the recipe for building a good city. Instead HRM's planning department and council come up with complicated and arbitrary rules (why do they care about signage? they state in the article that nobody but HRM planning complained about this) and then freaks out and threatens to fine developers who thought they were doing what the city wanted. Yikes!

[beyeas]

I mostly feel for the developer here.

Looking at the sign though, I think it is mostly innocuous with the one exception of "Coming Fall 2012". Maybe he should have said something along the lines of it being a "Tentative Completion Date Fall 2012" or something less... well... presumptuous. On the whole I don't really think that, and I think instead that the city seems more interested in finding ways to block things, but I can to a small extent see that saying something will definitely for 100% be done in 2012 when it hasn't yet been approved might have pushed someones buttons.

He probably could have dealt with that better, but all the same it is clear that city hall is all about the road-blocks when it comes to urban development.

[halifaxboyns]

I'm looking at it not from the rules of HbD but from the rules for signage. I'm assuming that there are rules related to what kind of signs are allowed where and based on the article, I'd assume he broke one of those rules. Most sign rules are pretty much the same city wide - which is why I say he should know them, I don't seem to recall anything special about them in HbD. So if typically the rules are similar citywide, they would be no different in this location versus a development in Dartmouth.

I guess I'm being a good 'city worker' (not for HRM but in general); but I've always thought that people should follow the rules. If he knew he should've gotten a permit; he should've gotten one. When I first did enforcement, I used to be all about either you had a permit or you didn't. I've mellowed over the years and I'm now more about getting the approval versus making someone take it down. I think in this case, while he may have broken the rules - giving him the opportunity (if the bylaw allowed) to apply for a permit would've made sense, rather then forcing the sign down. I'd have just made him pay double the fee if it's allowed. In many of the cities I've worked; that was the rule of thumb for your fee: if you put it up before you had permission, you had to pay double. Granted sign permits often cost very little - so it's no big effect, but it's the principle.

[RyeJay]

How dare this developer assume that Halifax wants to build something. :rolleyes:

[worldlyhaligonian]

Coming... fall 3012...

[worldlyhaligonian]

At least he's got developments on the go, I bet his focus will turn back towards this after gladstone is complete.

[Jstaleness]

If Danny Chedrawe reads this forum I would encourage him to keep us in the loop as his battle wages on. Something a little less intense than Pete Polley did in the Jazz forum though.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=179602

[Nifta]

I noticed that the sign was gone this morning on my way into work. For a sad moment I thought the developer had pulled out of the project. Glad to hear that it's just been taken down due to some bureaucracy!

[RyeJay]

There are two things I like about this project:
1. Its location
2. Its shape; front round facade.

The Drum's close proximaty to Citadel Hill is going to show our eyes the obvious reality of the hill's superior height. This is a good thing--especially to the heritage peoples. But the fun effect of this will be the Drum's height versus that of what's in the background: our prized Purdy's Wharf II, to which it looks similar, width-wise, and especially in terms of its front facade. The Drum will appear to be within equal to slightly superior height of Purdy's Wharf.

The Drum is going to be a visual high-heel for the Citadel.

[macgregor]

From: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/45119-architectural-firm-decides-move-building-it-designed

Architectural firm decides to move into building it designed
December 21, 2011 - 8:00pm BY REMO ZACCAGNA BUSINESS REPORTER

...

Meanwhile, construction work on a six-storey, 44-unit flatiron-style building across from Citadel Hill, dubbed the Drum, will begin in May, Chedrawe said.

The developer plans to build $250,000-$600,000 condominiums on the site, which sits on a wedge of land near Centennial Pool, by Rainnie Drive, North Park Street and Cogswell Street.

Regional council removed a major hurdle to the development by amending the secondary municipal planning strategy and land-use bylaw that required ground-level landscaped open space for residential buildings.

Chedrawe said he plans to build a green space on the building’s rooftop.

“We were waiting for this one major amendment in the HRM by Design bylaw, which was passed by council last week, so now we’ll start planning the design work.”

[cormiermax]

I hope they do a redesign before starting construction.

[RyeJay]

Does this mean the city won't throw a tantrum if the developer puts the 'coming soon' sign back up?

Oh good.

[Waye Mason]

I hope they do a redesign before starting construction.

God yes. Worst looking crap ever, in the style of that Falkland condo building.

[someone123]

Well, there's some serious competition in the "worst looking crap ever" category, particularly in this neighbourhood -- look at Agricola and Cunard for example.

One thing I find strange and unattractive is how busy many of these designs are. There are many handsome older buildings in Halifax, especially around this area, that are very simple and were probably inexpensive to build. I would not be surprised if a skilled architect could look at the styles in Halifax and design an elegant building of the same size at a lower cost than 5505 Falkland.

Inspiration could be found right across the street from the Drum location: http://g.co/maps/gtnvd

[coolmillion]

I live down the street from this site and wrote to Dawn Sloane to voice some concerns about the design of the building. She spoke to Danny Chedrawe on my behalf (and for some other people in the neighbourhood) and he's open to meeting to receiving feedback on how to improve the design. If anyone is interested in joining this discussion send me a pm or just post some suggestions here. It may be too late now but perhaps still worth trying...

[RyeJay]

Is there any news on this development? :) I thought it had been approved.

[cormiermax]

If it has been, that's unfortunate. This thing is ugly as hell, and well as stubby.

[Empire]

If it has been, that's unfortunate. This thing is ugly as hell, and well as stubby.

I agree, it is a cheap, ugly, typical downtown building. When will developers ever learn?

[Hali87]

I agree, it is a cheap, ugly, typical downtown building. When will developers ever learn?

This might have something to do with the fact that it's directly adjacent to the Citadel. The YMCA proposal has been a good illustration of how much this can complicate the development process. I remember reading an article in the Herald for the previous development on this site (which was about 10 storeys) in which a local resident was quoted as saying that we shouldn't be developing at this scale because he thought that Halifax was fine the way it is and shouldn't be trying to grow - this was about 5 or 6 years ago.

[someone123]

I read at some point that the delay is due to a problem with open space requirements that were created as part of HRM by Design (the policy is apparently something like "all developments must be X% open space", which sounds nice but is totally unworkable in some situations). The same delay is holding up the redevelopment of the empty lot near Spring Garden and South Park. Once the policy is amended these developments should be able to proceed.

You can find somebody to complain about anything. I think that new buildings can often complement open public spaces by lending them more definition and enlivening them. Parking lots, on the other hand, tend to really detract from these areas. The gap-toothed row of buildings along Barrington by the Grand Parade is a prime example.

[Hali87]

I think that new buildings can often complement open public spaces by lending them more definition and enlivening them. Parking lots, on the other hand, tend to really detract from these areas. The gap-toothed row of buildings along Barrington by the Grand Parade is a prime example.

HRMbyDesign actually encourages the development of a higher streetwall around Cornwallis Park for exactly this reason. It's kind of weird that the same logic can't be applied to other open spaces in the downtown. One of the recent arguments I heard against the YMCA proposal is that the Public Gardens is supposed to offer visitors a complete escape from the urban environment. Couldn't anybody overwhelmed by the chaos of Downtown Halifax just take refuge within the ramparts of the Citadel for a minute? They'd forget the city's there.. ;)

[FuzzyWuz]

One of the recent arguments I heard against the YMCA proposal is that the Public Gardens is supposed to offer visitors a complete escape from the urban environment....)

So we want people to come to the city and then go to the public gardens to get away from the city? :duh

I hope someone from 22 minutes is paying attention to all this.

[someone123]

Haven't heard about this one in a while. My understanding is that the same HRM by Design amendments are holding up both this development and the "L-shaped" development around the Eastlink building at the corner of Spring Garden Road and South Park Street.

[cormiermax]

Id rather this never get built, complete crap design.

[haligonia]

Id rather this never get built, complete crap design.

:previous::yes: This city deserves better.

[someone123]

Apparently because of the grade the developer can only build up to five storeys without a development agreement. I guess this site isn't covered by HRM by Design...? The developer might either break ground this fall on the five storey version, or they might elect to try to approval to go higher, in which case there would be another year or more of delay.

[Dmajackson]

Apparently because of the grade the developer can only build up to five storeys without a development agreement. I guess this site isn't covered by HRM by Design...? The developer might either break ground this fall on the five storey version, or they might elect to try to approval to go higher, in which case there would be another year or more of delay.

The site is in the HRM by Design area;

Pre-Bonus; 16m
Post-Bonus; 18.288m

This works out to 5 floors pre-bonus and 6 floors post-bonus roughly with standard ten feet per floor for residential use. The way this works is five floors would be approved by the development officer and would be very efficient allowing for construction this year. To get the original design they would have to go through the DRC (and if appealled Regional Council). This could add months onto the timeline delaying construction until next year.

The key to understanding HRM by Design is to remember projects that meet the by-law are approved without going through the public (just like As-of-right elsewhere). Projects that require ammendments go through the DRC and depending on the outcome possibly through Regional Council.

[someone123]

The confusion was that the Allnovascotia article mentioned "as of right" and generally sounded like it was talking about the old process.

For the developer to get the post-bonus height it's not just a matter of waiting a year. There would also have to be some kind of public benefit to the project and I'm not sure that was planned. It's kind of strange to have a 1 storey height bonus; that's not a lot of incentive.

[halifaxboyns]

The confusion was that the Allnovascotia article mentioned "as of right" and generally sounded like it was talking about the old process.

For the developer to get the post-bonus height it's not just a matter of waiting a year. There would also have to be some kind of public benefit to the project and I'm not sure that was planned. It's kind of strange to have a 1 storey height bonus; that's not a lot of incentive.

Seems more like an incentive to not bother really...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Ugh... this site is totally going to be ruined by a crap development.

I wish that 9 story flatiron brick proposal had gone through a few years ago.

[cormiermax]

So what happened with this? Its been so long since that hideous design was proposed, perhaps we could see a redesign sometime soon?

[Dmajackson]

Citadel-area condo plan up in air
January 10, 2013 - 8:32pm BY BILL POWER BUSINESS REPORTER

Halifax developer Danny Chedrawe’s proposed wedge-shaped condominium development for a property beside Citadel Hill remains in limbo at city hall.

“We’re still waiting for approval, with a few minor issues outstanding,” Chedrawe said Thursday.

The proposal for a triangular property by Centennial Pool remains entangled in land-use controls for the downtown, which Chedrawe said are geared to major developments.

...

(bpower@herald.ca)

Read More: thechronicleherald.ca (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/410642-citadel-area-condo-plan-up-in-air?utm_source=website&utm_medium=mobi&utm_campaign=full-site)

[cormiermax]

I hope it never gets threw and the developer eventually gives up.

[RyeJay]

I hope it never gets threw and the developer eventually gives up.

What are some changes to the design you'd like to see? :)

[cormiermax]

What are some changes to the design you'd like to see? :)

Where do I even start! :haha:

I think this thing would need a complete redesign, perhaps this time by an actual architect. EVERYTHING is bad about this design, from the lack of glass, to the horrible base, to the tacky roof trim.

Its just a complete and utter mess.

[RyeJay]

Where do I even start! :haha:

I think this thing would need a complete redesign, perhaps this time by an actual architect. EVERYTHING is bad about this design, from the lack of glass, to the horrible base, to the tacky roof trim.

Its just a complete and utter mess.

Hahah! I mostly agree with you.

If you could make just one change, however, what would it be? The one change I would make is the addition of more glass.

The developer had the advertising sign out quite early. He seems to be very eager to get to work.

[cormiermax]

More glass would be my choice as well, but it would still be an ugly building. If its built as designed now, it will no doubt be slum housing 15-20 years from now.

[RyeJay]

More glass would be my choice as well, but it would still be an ugly building. If its built as designed now, it will no doubt be slum housing 15-20 years from now.

As ugly as the Harper Building? ;)

[Drybrain]

Not to sound snarky, but given his track record, and his portfolio of mediocre-to-awful proposals (most of which are so bad I hope they never get built) I just don't think much of Chedrawe as a developer. I think the city'd be better off if he got out of the game.

[cormiermax]

As ugly as the Harper Building? ;)

No its better than the Harper building, Moncton would be lucky to get a building like this. But this is Halifax, and we need to demand more from developers.

[RyeJay]

No its better than the Harper building, Moncton would be lucky to get a building like this. But this is Halifax, and we need to demand more from developers.

I completely agree.

[coolmillion]

I think that Chedrawe is trying to be upbeat and positive in the CH article. He knows it's not a great design and is open to feedback. I contacted Dawn Sloane to express some concerns about the proposal a while back. She forwarded my email to Chedrawe and he wrote to me right away. He knows that this site is important and wants a high quality building on it.

I think that he is actually pretty good compared to some developers around town. Westwood (his company) developed Summer Crest at Sp Garden and Summer, the new TD building and the new buildings around Gladstone. They're not perfect (maybe others know of problems that I am unaware of) but they are all pretty solid developments in walkable areas that increase density on the Peninsula. The biggest thing is that he is open to dialogue and cares about the city.

[Drybrain]

I think that he is actually pretty good compared to some developers around town. Westwood (his company) developed Summer Crest at Sp Garden and Summer, the new TD building and the new buildings around Gladstone. They're not perfect (maybe others know of problems that I am unaware of) but they are all pretty solid developments in walkable areas that increase density on the Peninsula. The biggest thing is that he is open to dialogue and cares about the city.

Ah, difference of opinion then. I think those are all fairly awful, no offense intended. The new TD building is the best of a bad lot, but the colour is bad and it doesn't really have a good doorway for a pedestrian street. Gladstone and Summer Crest are really bad though, aesthetically and in how they relate to their surroundings, urbanistically speaking. (And I've ranted before about his unspeakable idea to raze the the block of Spring Garden with the BMO and the Victorian storefronts, now pretty unique in the city, after 2010's demolition of the similar buildings fronting Cornwallis Park on South Street).

Okay, rant over.

[someone123]

I view things kind of like this:

+100 points for filling a parking lot
+/- 25 points for building something nice or ugly
-100 points for demolishing a significant heritage building.

These 3 things are orthogonal. Because Halifax has so many empty lots, filling them in is more important than worrying about building beautiful buildings, although that would be preferable. Even if the Drum condos are not so great, it's better to build them and then move on to improve one of 100 other lifeless empty lots rather than getting hung up on trying to nail down the perfect design for this particular building.

Another subtle related point is that I think design gets better as property values rise and as there's more development and therefore more skilled builders and designers. I don't think designs get better by beating developers over the head, STV style. There's a lot of evidence to support my claims. For example, the sites that STV and the HT have targeted are disproportionately likely to remain parking lots (UG, Salter, and 5 years of Nova Centre post-Midtown).

[coolmillion]

Ah, difference of opinion then. I think those are all fairly awful, no offense intended. The new TD building is the best of a bad lot, but the colour is bad and it doesn't really have a good doorway for a pedestrian street. Gladstone and Summer Crest are really bad though, aesthetically and in how they relate to their surroundings, urbanistically speaking. (And I've ranted before about his unspeakable idea to raze the the block of Spring Garden with the BMO and the Victorian storefronts, now pretty unique in the city, after 2010's demolition of the similar buildings fronting Cornwallis Park on South Street).

Okay, rant over.

No offense taken! I guess I'm comparing them to other buildings like the new ones around the Commons which are highly visible and just wretched. I understand where you are coming from re: the loss of the Victorians on Spring Garden. In the early 90s when I was growing up my piano teacher lived in one of the houses that fronted on Spring Garden. It was a huge, beautiful apartment (she actually held recitals in her living room with rows of chairs laid out for 30 people) but the building itself was not well maintained and the rent was dirt cheap. I bet that even then the owner was planning to redevelop or sell to a developer down the road. So, that loss was a shame (like so many in this city), but I actually think that the new buildings are decent - better than most others that were going up around that time. Gladstone is a different story, but the new building on Almon is better.

[someone123]

Apparently the HbD changes required for this development were passed. The developer plans to begin construction this summer.

[W.Sobchak]

I cringe. That whole lock could be something spectacular. I walk by on my way to work everyday, and picture there a mega health and wellness centre, doubling the pool and amenities, with a physio and sports health an sciences centre connected, where the blood. Clinic is, and finally where Drum is going, a mixed proffessional centre to make more space for more doctors, dentists, and specialists.

The spot is ideal to service both DT, and Nend.