[Dmajackson]

Brand new proposal for the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue in Dartmouth just next to Lake Banook.
Case 16898 Details (http://halifax.ca/planning/Case16898Details.html)

[fenwick16]

Map - 307 Prince Albert Road (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&rlz=1B3GGLL_enCA362CA362&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=307+Prince+Albert+Road+halifax&fb=1&gl=ca&hnear=Milton,+ON&cid=0,0,955557609621162294&ei=1jGxTavYLYrn0QGryqH3Ag&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQnwIwAA) for Case 16898.

Here is the rendering (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898Renderings.pdf). It looks quite good but since this is so close to Lake Banook and requires rezoning, I imagine that it could take years to go through.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5945/307princealbertroad.jpg

[Jonovision]

This looks good. A great place for more density. Is it within the height restricted area for the lake? I haven't had a chance to read the DA yet.

Here are the other two renderings.


http://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/45674/2299605700096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2299605700096709958YyCCPb)

http://inlinethumb07.webshots.com/47558/2688937240096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2688937240096709958epihbq)

[-Harlington-]

Dartmouth is on a roll
:tup:

[Empire]

Map - 307 Prince Albert Road (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&rlz=1B3GGLL_enCA362CA362&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=307+Prince+Albert+Road+halifax&fb=1&gl=ca&hnear=Milton,+ON&cid=0,0,955557609621162294&ei=1jGxTavYLYrn0QGryqH3Ag&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQnwIwAA) for Case 16898.

Here is the rendering (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898Renderings.pdf). It looks quite good but since this is so close to Lake Banook and requires rezoning, I imagine that it could take years to go through.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5945/307princealbertroad.jpg

That is a great looking building but may be in for a battle on that site. The wind effect shouldn't be as big of an issue as the YMCA site but the neighbourhood will be out in full force to oppose it no doubt.

[Jstaleness]

It fits nicely. I like the shot with the Horizon Towers on the...well Horizon

[fenwick16]

It fits nicely. I like the shot with the Horizon Towers on the...well Horizon

There might soon be another Horizon on the Horizon. A Horizon 3 has been proposed that is 27 stories high (the Horizon 3 proposal looks great also - Horizon 3 thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=188996))

[halifaxboyns]

This looks like a pretty good development - hope this goes ahead!

[worldlyhaligonian]

I love it... I think something like this downtown would work well.

How long before the public outcry? I bet it will start right around the time when the public process starts.

[resetcbu1]

I love it... I think something like this downtown would work well.

How long before the public outcry? I bet it will start right around the time when the public process starts.

I agree 100% this would be great downtown either halifax or dartmouth, it would be great to see both DT's operate as one! but as far as this development is concerned I personally feel this is the wrong area for this density although I do like the building it's self , this is somewhat close to DT dartmouth but it would be better if it was closer and filled in those areas before expanding away.

[someone123]

Some aspects of the design, such as the little arched window a few floors above the main entrance, are very awkward. Cartoon architecture that reminds me of tilt-up suburban furniture stores.

It could be okay with some modification (I like some other elements like the curved balconies and upper cornice) but I'm not sure there are many other buildings for it to relate to in this area. Basically I suspect that it will be a vertical subdivison, at least until more infill happens nearby.

[Keith P.]

I had assumed this was going on the site of the former Ultramar gas station. But I drove by there yesterday and #307 is not that site. In fact there is a building already standing on #307. If you are travelling up Prince Albert Road there are the condos, the former Ultramar site, a strip mall with a Robins Donuts and a couple of other shops, and then #307. If the address is in fact #307 then it is well-removed from the lake and there should realistically be no wind issues.

[fenwick16]

It seems to be the right location. Here is the site plan (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898SitePlan.pdf) and the Map - 307 Prince Albert Road (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&rlz=1B3GGLL_enCA362CA362&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=307+Prince+Albert+Road+halifax&fb=1&gl=ca&hnear=Milton,+ON&cid=0,0,955557609621162294&ei=1jGxTavYLYrn0QGryqH3Ag&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQnwIwAA)

[Keith P.]

It seems to be the right location. Here is the site plan (http://halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898SitePlan.pdf) and the Map - 307 Prince Albert Road (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&rlz=1B3GGLL_enCA362CA362&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=307+Prince+Albert+Road+halifax&fb=1&gl=ca&hnear=Milton,+ON&cid=0,0,955557609621162294&ei=1jGxTavYLYrn0QGryqH3Ag&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQnwIwAA)

Yes, that is the building at #307, the former funeral home. Given that location it is far enough removed from the lake that I cannot imagine the wind issue will be raised by naysayers.

The former Ultramar site is quite large. I wonder if anything is being planned for that?

[Jonovision]

The lake does have a strict boundary around it for height limits. I know UGs YMCA falls within these, but they have done lots of wind studies to ensure nothing impedes the course. I'm pretty sure the development that was proposed a few years back for the Paddlers Cove site almost across the street from this was turned down because of wind impacts. I'm pretty sure the Ultramar site falls within those boundaries as well.

As far as density goes though, I think this is a great site for it. It's only about 20 mins walk to the ferry, there is a bus route or two along Prince Albert, and there is a grocery store directly across the street.

[Keith P.]

I fail to see how any wind effects from this site could affect the lake. It is on the opposite side of the road, and is separated from the lake not only by the road but a number of other buildings.

I don't know if there is transit service on Prince Albert Rd - if not, that is quite a hike to the ferry or anywhere else.

[halifaxboyns]

I fail to see how any wind effects from this site could affect the lake. It is on the opposite side of the road, and is separated from the lake not only by the road but a number of other buildings.

I don't know if there is transit service on Prince Albert Rd - if not, that is quite a hike to the ferry or anywhere else.

Typical transit oriented development (TOD) is plotted based on a maximum 20 minute walk; which usually ends up with a 600m radius from the typical station point. I've not measured the distance from the ferry terminal to the site but it sounds like it might meet that condition; so it could be considered TOD.

But I agree with you - its doubtful there would be any significant effects on the lake.

[Jonovision]

Fellow developer backs highrise plan

94-unit building among four planned for area


By CHRIS LAMBIE

Business Editor
ADEVELOPER plans to build a 15-storey apartment building in the Lake Banook area of Dartmouth.

Monaco Investments Ltd. , headed by Tony Maskine, plans to build the 94-unit structure on a site now occupied by a funeral home. Property records show Monaco bought 307 Prince Albert Rd. last spring from Granville Developments Inc. , which is headed by James Ross, getting a $448,000 mortgage from the Bank of Montreal to fi­nance the purchase.

“I think it would be pretty good improve­ment for the neighbourhood," said Bob Yuille, who heads Yuille Auto Works , which is beside the site of the proposed apartment complex.

“If the renderings are any indication of what’s to come, I’d have no objection to something of that quality and standard being next door to me, that’s for sure."

Maskine could not be reached Monday for comment.

“This guy doesn’t seem to be pinching any pennies in what he’s proposing for the prop­erty," said Yuille, who has discussed the proposal with the developer.

“It’s probably going to be in the $20 mil­lion to $30 million range, I’m sure."

Some Glenwood Avenue residents have expressed concerns about the increase in traffic the building would bring, he said.

“But I don’t think 94 cars makes much of a difference," Yuille said, noting that the planned building will be aimed at seniors who likely won’t be driving a lot during peak traffic times.

“They’re looking for retirees more than anything."

Donald K. Walker Funeral Directors is still on the site, Yuille said.

“For a funeral home, they weren’t that active for the last couple of years."

The proposed apartment build­ing’s design is “pretty impres­sive," he said. Yuille has been doing business in the area since 1986. Since the

Keddy’s Motel on Prince Albert Road was torn down just over a decade ago and replaced by an

Atlantic Superstore , he said the area seems cleaner and crime­free.

“It’s really helped the neigh­bourhood along," he said of the grocery store addition. “We used to have a lot of vandalism in this area with the cars and stuff like that. We don’t have any (of that) anymore."

Monaco is now applying to Halifax Regional Municipality to rezone the land where it wants to build. The property, which also borders on Glenwood Avenue, is deemed general commercial and two-unit residential. But the developer wants to change that to high-density residential.

“Three-quarters of the units are two-bedroom units, with the remainder as mainly one-bed­room units," said an overview of the project on the municipality’s website.

“Three levels of underground garage, with 130 parking spaces in total, are included, with eight surface parking spaces located outside. Existing mature trees on the site are to be retained."

A public information meeting on the project is slated for May 4 at 7 p.m. at Alderney School.

The area could be growing, with United Gulf Develop­ments Ltd. proposing two 17-storey condominium towers on the former Dartmouth YMCA site near Lake Banook. The mu­nicipal planning strategy capped building heights in the area at 10.5 metres in 2005, meaning the developer would need to get an amendment to build the towers.

And Yuille is planning a con­dominium project of his own on Prince Albert Road, on a 1.2-hectare property at the Bar­tlin Road intersection, between

NAPA Auto Parts and the school.

“I have a development agree­ment in place," he said. “I’m just waiting on a sale of a property fromHRM. . . . It could be any day now. They’re just working out some details on how to sell it to me and give me the frontage I require."

The 14-storey, 84-unit building would likely cost more than $20 million to build, said Yuille, who also heads Twin Lakes Devel­opment Ltd.

Height restrictions that could hamper the United Gulf proposal don’t affect properties on the south side of Prince Albert, he said.

“There’s a height restriction zone that runs straight up Prince Albert Road."

Yuille, 62, said he may not build the condominium project himself. “I’m getting too old. I could sell the agreement and property to somebody who may be interested."

(clambie@herald.ca)




It's nice to see an article with a positive slant on a building from the Herald. And it clears up the issue of the height limit too.

[JET]

Typical transit oriented development (TOD) is plotted based on a maximum 20 minute walk; which usually ends up with a 600m radius from the typical station point. I've not measured the distance from the ferry terminal to the site but it sounds like it might meet that condition; so it could be considered TOD.

But I agree with you - its doubtful there would be any significant effects on the lake.

The #62 bus travels in front of this site, and travels between the Dartmouth Ferry and Penhorn 'Mall'.

Given the site alignment for the building, sun and wind for the lake shouldn't be an issue.

[ibnem2]

Agreed - wind is a widely over rated non-issue.

Agreed - the building looks great.

If the city doesn't get more projects like this it will continue to decay while the suburbs grow. Just look at what's happening to city churches and schools - they're being run down and sold off. Property taxes will also increase without redevelopment of urban communities.

If my parents sell their home and want a place to live as they get older, I don't want to ship them off to some building in the suburbs. I plan to attend the public hearing and speak up for this development - I encourage others to do the same.

cheers ...

[Dmajackson]

Here's a before photo of the site (funeral home right now):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/5724029215_9f3f12378d_z.jpg

[fenwick16]

:previous: Not exactly an architectural gem.

[Dmajackson]

For those people who were wondering about the 35' height limit around Lake Banook here is a PDF showing the affected area (from this proposal's information page);

Case 16898 Staff Presentation (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898PIMStaffPresentation.pdf)

[ibnem2]

For those people who were wondering about the 35' height limit around Lake Banook here is a PDF showing the affected area (from this proposal's information page);

Case 16898 Staff Presentation (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/16898PIMStaffPresentation.pdf)

Yeah - It's clearly outside the 35 foot height precinct, so sky's the limit ...

I really like this project. Hopefully dartmouth will do the right thing and support more projects like this.

cheers ...

[JET]

Yeah - It's clearly outside the 35 foot height precinct, so sky's the limit ...

I really like this project. Hopefully dartmouth will do the right thing and support more projects like this.

cheers ...

I can't see anyone arguing against it
Hopefully someone will have a proposal for the empty lot beside the NEEDS store.

[ibnem2]

I can't see anyone arguing against it
Hopefully someone will have a proposal for the empty lot beside the NEEDS store.

That's the old Ultramar site and it is in the 35 foot height precinct. A community shopping centre or market would be nice.

cheers ...

[Jringe01]

So...any idea when will we know anything concrete? :-)

[ibnem2]

Based on what I've read, looks like construction could be next year provided HRM approves the application this year.

[Dmajackson]

Surprise, surprise ... there's a new community group forming to oppose this project;

'It’s just too high'
A 15-storey building has been proposed for the site of Walkers Funeral Home on Prince Alberta Road. This former Georgian-style home remains standing under the (funeral home) utilitarian exterior. The proposal has been put forward by Monaco Investments....
Published on July 5, 2011
By Joanie Veitch - The Weekly News

Although she’s seen many changes in the area, one longtime resident of the upper part of Prince Albert Road does not want to see a 15-storey apartment building go up on the site of her childhood home.

“When the rumours first started going around we were hearing that it was going to be a four- or five-storey building. Then when we heard it was to be a 15-storey building … oh my goodness, I didn’t know what to think,” said M. Eisener

...

Read More Here (http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/News/2011-07-05/article-2632440/It%26rsquo%3Bs-just-too-high/1)

[Keith P.]

Uh-oh, I feel the earth starting to wobble already... spinning off its axis!

[resetcbu1]

Surprise, surprise ... there's a new community group forming to oppose this project;



Read More Here (http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/News/2011-07-05/article-2632440/It%26rsquo%3Bs-just-too-high/1)

shut the fu%k up already ,I am so sick of these people :hell: booohoooo it's to high , god damn it it's all these older folks who wanna whine and hold the rest of us back because they remember a fucking orchard and the city caves in, for god sake she must be so old she'd be dead before it was ever built so she'll never have to see it!

as if its the developers fault her family sold the damn place in the 50's too bad woman time to build someone elses memories for the next century... and this group BARA saying this is faliy oriented area with modest homes obviously don't hink people who live in buildings are modest or family oriented , lame excuse for not wanting it in your yard , just say what you mean don't sugar coat it you don't want your family /modest life changed or make any sacrifice for the better of a whole city, News flash every neighbourhood was an orchard or pasture at one point family oriented, small everyone knows their neighbour but citys grow up and so should alot of these cry babies!

[FuzzyWuz]

So what do they mean when they say this old georgian building is 'still standing under the funeral home'? A foundation? Is it all there but 'out of phase' like on star trek? Cuz all I see is a funeral home.

[fenwick16]

Do I understand this story correctly? Are they saying that this:

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/media/photos/unis/2011/07/05/photo_1770452_resize_article.jpg (source: http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/News/2011-07-05/article-2632440/It%26rsquo%3Bs-just-too-high/1)

was transformed into this?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/5724029215_9f3f12378d_z.jpg
(source: Dmajackson - posted in skyscraperpage)


It seems as though the damage was already done decades ago. Now let's get rid of the eyesore that stands there now and build something more decent (the 15 storey apartment building). These opposition groups are becoming totally unreasonable. That is no longer an "idyllic countryside" area, it is directly next to a major highway - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=307+Prince+Albert+Road,+dartmouth,+ns&ll=44.681012,-63.54872&spn=0.011931,0.033023&gl=ca&z=16 .

[JET]

shut the fu%k up already ,I am so sick of these people :hell: booohoooo it's to high , god damn it it's all these older folks who wanna whine and hold the rest of us back because they remember a fucking orchard and the city caves in, for god sake she must be so old she'd be dead before it was ever built so she'll never have to see it!

as if its the developers fault her family sold the damn place in the 50's too bad woman time to build someone elses memories for the next century... and this group BARA saying this is faliy oriented area with modest homes obviously don't hink people who live in buildings are modest or family oriented , lame excuse for not wanting it in your yard , just say what you mean don't sugar coat it you don't want your family /modest life changed or make any sacrifice for the better of a whole city, News flash every neighbourhood was an orchard or pasture at one point family oriented, small everyone knows their neighbour but citys grow up and so should alot of these cry babies!

I think that you are way over the top with these comments. She has a right to her opinions, and should be treated with respect. It's a commercial property, there are few limitations on what can go there. There may be some old wood under a current eyesore, nothing really to save. Please be respectful, particularly with your elders; they deserve respect.

[Waye Mason]

That is right at Graham's Corner, as we used to call it. 15 stories is what, almost triple the height of anything near there? Sure there is a Superstore right there, and the condos and hotel, but that is a lowish density, residential neighbourhood. I grew up at the top of that hill (up Celtic) so I have to say I want to see drawings and such.

Like always, it will depend on the ground level, how it faces the streets, and the quality of materials for me.

A secondary consideration is that it will have to pass an extensive wind study to make sure it does not frig with Banook and the paddlers.

[terrynorthend]

This isn't a super-tall (25-40 story) building that we are talking about. It is a moderate-rise 15 story residential (shorter floors than commercial) development. Sure there are considerations on wind impact on Banook, but it is outside of the 500 feet exclusion zone, so I'm not sure if unfavorable wind studies would even be admissable. This seems like a nice development that would probably have minimal impact on the lake, and attract decent tennants.

A common thread I hear from Nimby groups like BARA is we are not Nimby's, we are not against development just for the sake of it, we are just looking to protect our modest homes and residential neighbourhood. But then where does one build mid-rise residential? BARA and others would have all these built in someone else's modest residential neighbourhood? In industrial parks, next to highways? Sounds Nimby to me.

I live in a high-rise now, in central penninsular Halifax. It is a great place. I live in a great neighbourhood. I leave my lobby and walk around this and participate IN this great neighbourhood. Great people live in my building, including new immigrants, young families and older/disabled people who benefit from the accesibility of such a building. I, and the others who live in my building are PART OF this neighbourhood. I would not want to live in a mid-rise or high-rise where my front door dumps out onto a major highway, and my neighbours are warehouses and truckyards. I doubt many would.

Don't the residents of tall buildings deserve to live in nice residential neighbourhoods too, or is that now being reserved for only those who can afford to live in, or have the physical mobility to live in and keep up a house.

[beyeas]

:previous:

Very well spoken posting.

[halifaxboyns]

Well spoken Terry.

This goes back to the discussion we had in one of the other threads about the HbD efforts that will be occuring in the hydrostone area. One of the problems which Jono and I have talked about in that discussion is that whenever people hear the term 'high density' - they instantly think of fenwick tower. That's come up time and time again, in public hearings, public meetings. We need to really get people away from that attitude, because having more towers that big isn't a bad thing. But you can also have a whole bunch of smaller 10 to 15 storey buildings and it still helps too.

I've been taking some notes about comments in here for when the regional plan will have to be redone. Just my own personal thoughts and a few selected thoughts from others, about a way to move forward with the regional plan, if I were able to have an input into the process. I go back to what we did with Plan It out here in Calgary: We had a lot of public meetings and speakers that talked about good design and integration of development, which the public could attend. I think information is the key to starting to change people's minds...

[Waye Mason]

I'm in favor of development, and yet, reading the staff slides, C2 means:

•No height limit on buildings,
•No setback requirements or lot coverage limits,
•No architectural guidelines or design controls.

So it is all up to a push - pull argument/discussion between the developers and other interested parties in the community to moderate excess. That is the system we have over there, so the fact that people are concerned that a lot directly abutting a R zone is going to go from 2-3 stories to 15 stories is legitimate, I think.

Then they go back and forth and sometimes you end up with a better over all plan, like what has been happening with the St Joseph's property on Gottingen.

I don't think less of these people because they care about their neighbourhood enough to get involved with this discussion, for discussion it is, that is how this part of the process works.

[halifaxboyns]

I'm in favor of development, and yet, reading the staff slides, C2 means:

•No height limit on buildings,
•No setback requirements or lot coverage limits,
•No architectural guidelines or design controls.



I think you've missed the point of the staff presentation. The C-2 zone is what applies to the site now. If the policy changes are approved, they want to rezone from C-2 to R-4 (High Density Residential). They also would be applying to have approval through a development agreement - I'm taking this from page 10 of the 12 page staff powerpoint presentation.

None of the zones in any of the land use bylaws (other than downtown because of HbD) currently has any regulations (that I can recall) related to design. There may be some 'criptic' language on use of materials, but nothing like HbD which has gone into specifics and is a form based code. So if he didn't have to get a rezoning and it was allowed through the C-2 zone; then yes I could understand their concerns because no height limits or design requirements could create something not so great.

But on page 11 of the staff presentation, the planner clearly states:
"Harbour East Community Council will review the application and make a decision based on a detailed evaluation which will address matters including:


Site & Building design,
Relationship to adjacent land uses,
Traffic impacts,
Sewer & Water servicing capability,
Adequacy of recreation & amenity space,
Tree retention & landscaping, and
Grading & drainage."


So this is where I find their concern over building height to be less creditable...I have a feeling HRM will probably ask the height be reduced. If they do, fine - it might make it more compatible. If not, I'm equally happy. But the proposal has nothing to do with the existing C-2 zoning - the application is to rezone to R-4.

[beyeas]

Then they go back and forth and sometimes you end up with a better over all plan, like what has been happening with the St Joseph's property on Gottingen.


I completely disagree with you on that point. All that seems to matter is height, height, and height. Overall design plans never seem to be what people care about... 90% of the time it is just height. I rarely if ever hear discussion in the notes from public forums about how the street level design/integration could be changed/improved etc, but I do read constantly about how scary a "tall" building is.

In the case of the St J development, all that has happened is that the height was reduced 2 floors. What has that actually achieved in a positive way?

To some that is somehow better, although an equal argument could be made that this will make the overall plan worse by cutting into margins that will then negatively impact the budget for finishing details.

[halifaxboyns]

beyeas makes an interesting point...which made me wonder about the discussion Jono and I had about building height as well.

I've heard a few times that people equate height to fenwick, so fenwick = bad. But I wonder if that opinion would change once the work on fenwick is completed? Let's face it, fenwick is pretty bad as it stands now but when the recladding is done...would people feel the same way?

Another thought I had about height was this: Essentially everything in the regional core (inside the circ and peninsula halifax) is where the regional plan wants to concentrate 25% of the growth. The next regional plan, that might increase. If building height is such an issue - then perhaps what needs to be done is determine a context formula for building height?

You could set it up like this: In neighbourhoods where the prodominate building height does not exceed 2 stories (set some sort of distance around the site of a proposal); then the maximum height of any redevelopment project couldn't exceed say 5 to 7 stories. You could also set it up so that there are rare circumstances that it could go higher (say 9 stories) through a bonusing system.

Then if you have a neighbourhood like the hydrostone, where the context has buildings in the 5 to 9 storey range - then any infill could go up say 15, with bonuses up to 20.

This way, it's a gradual stepped approach to infill of the community. Calgary did that for the inner city when it came to infill houses. The maximum height and step forward of your new home depends on the context of the existing homes next to you. So if you are in a bungalow area - you can only get 8.6m. But if they are two stories, you could get a max building height between 8.6 to 10m. But no house can exceed 10m, unless a relaxation (variance) is granted.

[Keith P.]

I completely disagree with you on that point. All that seems to matter is height, height, and height. Overall design plans never seem to be what people care about... 90% of the time it is just height. I rarely if ever hear discussion in the notes from public forums about how the street level design/integration could be changed/improved etc, but I do read constantly about how scary a "tall" building is.

In the case of the St J development, all that has happened is that the height was reduced 2 floors. What has that actually achieved in a positive way?

To some that is somehow better, although an equal argument could be made that this will make the overall plan worse by cutting into margins that will then negatively impact the budget for finishing details.

Exactly. All that happened with St. Josephs is that a few floors got lopped off because the local Mafia Don councillor Jerry Blumenthal decreed that it was "too TALL!!!". So that means a reduced revenue stream for the developer and a reduced ROI. That in turn means likely use of less expensive materials and other cutting of corners that results in a less attractive design and finished product. Who benefits from that? Nobody. This phobia about building height is resulting in far too many short, stubby, cheap-looking buildings in HRM. For what, I do not know.

[someone123]

Yep, I agree with terrynorthend's comment. In order for housing to be affordable for a wide variety of people there has to be a decent supply. People who bemoan the loss of pastoral charm in Dartmouth in practice are asking for the whole city to be designed around the concerns of a small, privileged minority. The vast majority of people in Halifax will never own a charming Victorian on a giant lot.

I also agree about the disproportionate, misguided focus on height. I think it is a huge part of why public consultation is useless in Halifax. There isn't a real dialogue about the good and bad qualities of new development in the city -- it's just trench warfare.

[beyeas]

I also agree about the disproportionate, misguided focus on height. I think it is a huge part of why public consultation is useless in Halifax. There isn't a real dialogue about the good and bad qualities of new development in the city -- it's just trench warfare.

the comments in the herald today are a great example of that, in the article about Spirit Place. There is not one single comment in the paper from any participant in the public meeting about the design. Instead, every single last comment is about the height. And all that will happen if they get their wish is that it will get shorter at the expense if design quality, thereby perpetuating the decades long trend of shit residential architecture in this city.

Community of communities my ass... We are a Compromise of compromises.

[ibnem2]

That is right at Graham's Corner, as we used to call it. 15 stories is what, almost triple the height of anything near there? Sure there is a Superstore right there, and the condos and hotel, but that is a lowish density, residential neighbourhood. I grew up at the top of that hill (up Celtic) so I have to say I want to see drawings and such.

Like always, it will depend on the ground level, how it faces the streets, and the quality of materials for me.

A secondary consideration is that it will have to pass an extensive wind study to make sure it does not frig with Banook and the paddlers.

A few things

- that article was pretty badly done - no real journalism there

- I doubt that there is even a foundation left from that misleading picture. when was that taken circa 1895. and even if it was around fifty years ago, I doubt it looked like that.

- in the bylaws, C2 allows any size or height for commercial like a hotel, without council approving.

- But he C2 doesn't let them build high density residential, so they're applying for rezoning and development agreement (giving HRM control)

- sounds like a wind study is done from the article and if you're use common sense and read wind about other proposals in the area there are no wind issues. This is way overplayed as an excuse.

- there are a few buildings across on lake banook that are around same height. also a couple by sullivan's pond. all around in other dartmouth places and halifax if you look.

- on bldg height this is so subjective and what's the difference between a 10 or 14 storey bldg, my neck stretches when I look up at a 3 storey building. give me space around the building and I'll take the height any day. Crazy how we keep building cheap squatty buildings.

- many parts of the area are run down, with of bad multi unit around the corner and some rough commercial. even a lot of the homes are being rented out. also crime was much worse in the area before superstore - this building would help

- this building is high end - that is obvious

- Everyone moves away from Dartmouth when they need a condo or they get older. No wonder the city is dying

It's a good offer by the builder and the residential building fits better. They should support and not oppose this.

[JET]

A few things

- that article was pretty badly done - no real journalism there

- I doubt that there is even a foundation left from that misleading picture. when was that taken circa 1895. and even if it was around fifty years ago, I doubt it looked like that.

- in the bylaws, C2 allows any size or height for commercial like a hotel, without council approving.

- But he C2 doesn't let them build high density residential, so they're applying for rezoning and development agreement (giving HRM control)

- sounds like a wind study is done from the article and if you're use common sense and read wind about other proposals in the area there are no wind issues. This is way overplayed as an excuse.

- there are a few buildings across on lake banook that are around same height. also a couple by sullivan's pond. all around in other dartmouth places and halifax if you look.

- on bldg height this is so subjective and what's the difference between a 10 or 14 storey bldg, my neck stretches when I look up at a 3 storey building. give me space around the building and I'll take the height any day. Crazy how we keep building cheap squatty buildings.

- many parts of the area are run down, with of bad multi unit around the corner and some rough commercial. even a lot of the homes are being rented out. also crime was much worse in the area before superstore - this building would help

- this building is high end - that is obvious

- Everyone moves away from Dartmouth when they need a condo or they get older. No wonder the city is dying

It's a good offer by the builder and the residential building fits better. They should support and not oppose this.

It is possible that the old building still exists under the 'modern' exterior. A lot of funeral homes were old homes that became funeral homes. Take off the porch, towers, and hip roof, and make a flat roof; you have a box. Add starnge siding and slit windows and voila: ugly building. Maybe not, just saying. I support the new project. It would be Interesting to know more about the history (all of which is without merit now).

[Heather]

Yes please....its time for some changes ....

[JET]

Yes please....its time for some changes ....

Welcome to the forum Heather, tell us a bit more about your thoughts on this development. Do you remember when the old house 'became' the funeral home?

[Heather]

Back in the 1975/76 era, the original homestead was all but eliminated, the structure roof was leveled, the footprint increased and the structure was "commercialized". All that remains in originial condition is the set of stairs leading to the second floor...

[TheNovaScotian]

LOL, thank you for posting that, I just about spit water all over my computer screen.:haha:
Maybe BARA should change their name to Save the View from the top of the Staircase.
I still get upset when i read of Ms. Eisener's comment of "Oh my Goodness, i didn't know what to think." I'm guessing that happens alot to her at her age.

[kojak23]

there is a website for this proposal.

http://theprincealbert.ca/

From the renderings you can see that the building is being built with the highest of finishes. I am being told that there is a video that is being worked on that will highlight the interior finishes and attention to detail. I have seen some of it and it looks bar none like the nicest most luxurious building in HRM (including the VIC).

I strongly urge that we all sign the petition and send in our comments on the website here: http://theprincealbert.ca/petition
and email Councillor McCluskey to let her know of your support for this project.

This building is too nice to allow it to be built somewheres else.

[takepart]

For the life of the cities - grow up...literally. "If you're not willing to use it, maintain it ,clean it up, grow it,think or talk about it- you'll lose it." Any person coming back to the Metro area after a few years or more has got to shake their head & wonder why more (I take that back) SOME / ANY, reasonable thought, action , development hasn't yet in much capacity reached the east, in particular Metro & Dartmouth. We have the opportunity to beautify, be progressive instead of reactionary- instead I hear whining and see fear factor paralysis and read misinformation that is purposely put out there to confuse the masses because the average person doesn't take the time to "think, research, learn and enlarge their understanding ". It is ludicrous that broken down, eyesore buildings, burnt out bldgs, bulldozed lots - to name a few- remain undeveloped or improved due to "bottiellage"- bottlenecks in development processes that uphold "old thought processes" of "not here".

These communities are likely the same ones complaining, demanding in "woo is me" voices that have "I want " lists for side walks, keep my school open and improve it, get the crime out of my neighborhood . These ques. need to be developed one step further-- what is required to have these concerns met.... increased density, increased tax base, increase in businesses, revitalized areas that provide housing of all types to facilitate demographics and lifestyles. This hasn't got a snowball of a chance without some change and growth in development...Gosh, why don't they teach these basics in school??
In other cities these run down ,or vacant properties are snapped up by the savy thinkers, doers and developers who put vitality back into the areas and cities making people want to come there, live there and grow a thriving community .

[KathyMT]

I grew up in the area. I'm sad to see the condition of some of the properties as they currently exist. I would consider moving back to the area with a quality development like this one. It's such a great part of town otherwise with the Superstore close by, the beautiful lake which is a lovely route to walk around, lots of community activities on the lake, the large regional mall and Dartmouth Crossing close by, the trails, close to downtown. I'm sure this development could maintain many of the locals who wish to downsize. What a great improvement to the community this would be, especially since the developer has taken quality, esthetics and most importantly environmental, economic and social sustainability into account in the design. This area needs something this beautiful to revitalize it...not to mention the increase in tax revenue.

Since the project would be outside the limit on height restriction, then what's all the fuss about wind? If mostly seniors were living there, who wouldn't typically be coming in and out during peak traffic hours, I don't see any issues regarding traffic. I don't think traffic would be nearly as bad as it was when funerals were held at the funeral home which currently exists on the site.

I'm all for it and hope that it goes ahead. Lets make the most of this incredible part of HRM.

[beyeas]

:cheers:
welcome takepart and KathyMT!

[ibnem2]

From what I've read there are few or No technical issues (planning, wind, shadow and traffic look good) with the application - it's all about the politics. The only way this will get passed is if the councillors (who I am sure will want this project) are given ammunition by supporters. The more people that come to the hearing and support the more likely it is to be passed by council.

Anyone hear anything about hearing dates ...?

Cheers.

[Heather]

The hearing dates have not been set, but they are quickly approaching. From what I have heard it is a 60-90 day window, so there is more time to get to and sign the petition www.theprincealbert.ca/petition and tell friends about it. We need to make sure this building goes up on this site, not elsewhere.
We HAVE to keep these Developers focused on this residential project....remember this property is primarily zoned C2. :yes:

[KathyMT]

To show my support, I would like to speak briefly at the hearing. Anyone else speaking? We'll watch for the date to be announced. :speech:

[JET]

This seems like a unique thread. There are a number of relatively new forum posters who are from the neighborhood and are proponents of the development. I can't remember that on other threads.

[halifaxboyns]

The website for this project has a link to the case website on HRM. There is nothing on there with the public hearing dates, but usually DMJackson is on the ball and checks every community/regional council agenda.

Considering the interest in this item, we'll all keep an eye out I'm sure.

[KathyMT]

I hear the list of supporters as well as speakers is growing. Burnside News may be publishing a supportive article soon.
Seems like they're gaining momentum which is great to hear.
:ohyeah

[halifaxboyns]

This is certainly good news. I was a little concerned that the former YMCA site recommendation against going into a DA would play badly for this one...but I think it's far enough back not to be a concern.

[Keith P.]

McCroskey boasted at council tonight that there is a petition against this with 1100 names on it, allegedly because of the impact on the paddling course. She, of course, is against this development.

Since they turned down the United Gulf proposal for the YMCA site across the lake I imagine this will be hotly contested.

[fenwick16]

The hearing dates have not been set, but they are quickly approaching. From what I have heard it is a 60-90 day window, so there is more time to get to and sign the petition www.theprincealbert.ca/petition and tell friends about it. We need to make sure this building goes up on this site, not elsewhere.
We HAVE to keep these Developers focused on this residential project....remember this property is primarily zoned C2. :yes:

How many people have signed the petition in favour?

[ibnem2]

McCroskey boasted at council tonight that there is a petition against this with 1100 names on it, allegedly because of the impact on the paddling course. She, of course, is against this development.

Since they turned down the United Gulf proposal for the YMCA site across the lake I imagine this will be hotly contested.

Who is "McCroskey" (do you mean councillor McCluskey) and what discussion could have place at council (i.e., a preliminary hearing ) ?

BTW I heard that Councillor McCluskey is actually supportive of the project but is being pressured by non supporters to turn it down (imagine that...). In the end she will hopefully have enough positive support to do the right thing and not get bullied by the negative vocal minority.

United Gulf was turned down because it's clearly within the 35 foot height precinct. My understanding is that the application was also somewhat poorly managed "politically". The Prince Albert is not within the 35 foot zone and specifically excluded as part of the 2006 height policy. Additionally the Prince Albert may be developed as of right for a number of commercial uses ... so what would you rather have, another Tim's, a 20 storey hotel, or this ...

BTW, I was by the Vic in Halifax earlier today and genuinely impressed. Dartmouth has got to get their act together and push for quality developments. There should be no discussion about this stuff - they simply need to get it done. Empowering residents to engage in a public process where councillors are elected to do a job is ridiculous. Government by referendum defeats the need for elected officials in a democratic state. Let the councillors do their homework and do their job - stop second guessing them with these foolish public hearings. Can't get the job done if the only focus is fear of being re-elected. Guess I'm tired of hearing "the people have spoken" ...

Peace ...

[someone123]

McCroskey boasted at council tonight that there is a petition against this with 1100 names on it, allegedly because of the impact on the paddling course. She, of course, is against this development.

Gloria's just upset because that's where she settled in and built her first quaint little hut after the last ice age. Multi-storey buildings, running water, etc. have been difficult to adapt to.

Can't wait for her to announce retirement (maybe she has?) or get booted from council during the next election.

[ibnem2]

Gloria's just upset because that's where she settled in and built her first quaint little hut after the last ice age. Multi-storey buildings, running water, etc. have been difficult to adapt to.

Can't wait for her to announce retirement (maybe she has?) or get booted from council during the next election.

Gloria is not a quitter and will forge on to the end and then some. She does what she does because she too is a victim of a flawed process.

The only way to get real change is to get the right information to as many people as possible (luv the internet & skyscraper forums / hate community based hack print publications and main stream media). Human nature spurs on people with negative ambitions while the rationale element is content to remain silent. Get out and speak at the hearings. The nay sayers will always be there but it only takes one rational voice to negate 5 of the misguided defeatists.

cheers ..

oh and I saw this earlier in the post but wort repeating

www.theprincealbert.ca/petition

[JET]

Gloria is all for development, unless there is a good reason to not support. The Y proposal was defeated because of the impact on paddling on Banook, and most sensible people on here support that. If this proposal also affects the lake then it may not get approved. I expect that it is fine for the lake. Gloria represents her constituents very well, that's her job.

[Jstaleness]

Where is the petition for those against? I was unable to find it, but I guess that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I did find an article about the proposal which was positive for a change and gave reasons this would be good for Dartmouth.

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Opinion/2011-09-07/article-2742063/The-Prince-Albert/1

I don't think it has been linked yet but the article is a few weeks old.

[Heather]

How many people have signed the petition in favour?

I don't know the numbers, but from what I can see there is growing support for the project and good sustainable development for Dartmouth. There are so many areas that have simply not reached their potential and this builidng would be well suited for, it is amazing that Monaco has not lost its belief that this site is still the right one and taken the project elsewhere!

[Keith P.]

Gloria is all for development, unless there is a good reason to not support. The Y proposal was defeated because of the impact on paddling on Banook, and most sensible people on here support that. If this proposal also affects the lake then it may not get approved. I expect that it is fine for the lake. Gloria represents her constituents very well, that's her job.

Gloria stated that she does not think this lot should ever be developed. Presumably, forever, and for any thing. She also singlehandedly engineered the quashing of even a public hearing for development of the obsolete Brightwood golf course. How is that being "for development"? Did you mean "in favor of development that does not gore her partiucular ox?"

[Heather]

Gloria stated that she does not think this lot should ever be developed. Presumably, forever, and for any thing. She also singlehandedly engineered the quashing of even a public hearing for development of the obsolete Brightwood golf course. How is that being "for development"? Did you mean "in favor of development that does not gore her partiucular ox?"

I heard that Gloris is stepping down next year, this could be another feather in her cap if she does vote and promote this project. She feels that she was the driving force for the 35 ft height around the lakes, this way she could say that she voted for what was right!

If she does vote against this project, then the Prince Albert Road area "business district" takes yet another punch in the stomach. The land across from the site and immediatly adjacent are zoned C2 as well. They need to be developed in a commercial manner to bring commerce to this area, that will support the growth this area needs and the transformation. Without a strong local income base, then the commercial development will not take place. So instead of bring "world class paddlers and fans" to an area live with local business and amenities, we bring them to what????

[JET]

Gloria stated that she does not think this lot should ever be developed. Presumably, forever, and for any thing. She also singlehandedly engineered the quashing of even a public hearing for development of the obsolete Brightwood golf course. How is that being "for development"? Did you mean "in favor of development that does not gore her partiucular ox?"

That's almost poetic
Brightwood should never be developed; it would make a lovely park/public space.

[halifaxboyns]

I have to admit I don't really know much about this area beyond the rowing course; I've not visited the area much.

When I get home to Halifax tomorrow, i will likely go visit the area.

If there is a commercial area, I wonder if it could be considered a commercial corridor? This shows my lack of knowledge of the area...

Whether Gloria votes for this or not; the policy amendments will fall to regional council to vote on. So she's one vote out of twenty four. The only thing I worry about is that if the policy amendments are passed but they vote down any rezoning or DA; then it just adds to a complicated process.

As for Brightwood - I can see some of it being developed for infill housing (if the golf course ever closed). I don't think that would be bad, but I'd want to see a part of the course kept for parkland.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Gloria stated that she does not think this lot should ever be developed. Presumably, forever, and for any thing. She also singlehandedly engineered the quashing of even a public hearing for development of the obsolete Brightwood golf course. How is that being "for development"? Did you mean "in favor of development that does not gore her partiucular ox?"

That's almost poetic
Brightwood should never be developed; it would make a lovely park/public space.

Really, like none of it? "Lovely park".... who are you? lol

[JET]

[QUOTE=JET;5419396]

Really, like none of it? "Lovely park".... who are you? lol

Just a guy who likes development but also likes parkland. In the winter it is a great place for everyone to enjoy. In the summer it's a place for golf. The City could easily trade some land somewhere for a golf course. There's not a lot of open spaces left, and what a view.

[JET]

I have to admit I don't really know much about this area beyond the rowing course; I've not visited the area much.

When I get home to Halifax tomorrow, i will likely go visit the area.

If there is a commercial area, I wonder if it could be considered a commercial corridor? This shows my lack of knowledge of the area...

Whether Gloria votes for this or not; the policy amendments will fall to regional council to vote on. So she's one vote out of twenty four. The only thing I worry about is that if the policy amendments are passed but they vote down any rezoning or DA; then it just adds to a complicated process.

As for Brightwood - I can see some of it being developed for infill housing (if the golf course ever closed). I don't think that would be bad, but I'd want to see a part of the course kept for parkland.

There is really very little commercial in that area, except for the donut shop/greengables and the superstore by the parclo. both sides of the lake are residential and paddling clubs. While I like the proposed development, it is residential, not sure where the commercial corridor part comes in.

[Empire]

I have to admit I don't really know much about this area beyond the rowing course; I've not visited the area much.

When I get home to Halifax tomorrow, i will likely go visit the area.

If there is a commercial area, I wonder if it could be considered a commercial corridor? This shows my lack of knowledge of the area...

Whether Gloria votes for this or not; the policy amendments will fall to regional council to vote on. So she's one vote out of twenty four. The only thing I worry about is that if the policy amendments are passed but they vote down any rezoning or DA; then it just adds to a complicated process.

As for Brightwood - I can see some of it being developed for infill housing (if the golf course ever closed). I don't think that would be bad, but I'd want to see a part of the course kept for parkland.

This is the commercial area of Prince Albert: The subject site is the ugly gray building just beyond the NEEDS Convenience Store sign.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.678785,-63.552614&spn=0.000008,0.005831&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=52.852545,95.537109&vpsrc=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.678737,-63.55279&panoid=Nwwyuf8XBMRfmH9ZTq43ow&cbp=12,107.52,,0,0.98&z=18]

These are some very cheap ugly residential units on prime land with a water view on Prince Albert:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.678655,-63.553103&spn=0.000008,0.005831&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=52.852545,95.537109&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.67863,-63.553219&panoid=qIq6GoQHMQJSfVkIUnENZA&cbp=12,242.52,,0,0.98

[ibnem2]

There is really very little commercial in that area, except for the donut shop/greengables and the superstore by the parclo. both sides of the lake are residential and paddling clubs. While I like the proposed development, it is residential, not sure where the commercial corridor part comes in.

Right - Very little commercial (something of a no-mans land). Addition of quality residential housing would be an impetus for new commercial in the area.

On an earlier comment re council, if I understand this correctly the hearing would be by community council (McCluskey, Karsten, Fisher, Smith, Barkhouse and Nicoll).

http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/hecc.html

Cheers ...

[halifaxboyns]

Right - Very little commercial (something of a no-mans land). Addition of quality residential housing would be an impetus for new commercial in the area.

On an earlier comment re council, if I understand this correctly the hearing would be by community council (McCluskey, Karsten, Fisher, Smith, Barkhouse and Nicoll).

http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/hecc.html

Cheers ...

Ah yes, I see where I misunderstood. I went back to the case information from HRM's website and I thought there was a policy amendment involved - in which case the amendment to the Dartmouth MPS would go to regional council. But since there isn't, you are correct it will just be the Harbour East Council voting on this.

Either way, there is an appeal process...I'm not too concerned.

[ibnem2]

Ah yes, I see where I misunderstood. I went back to the case information from HRM's website and I thought there was a policy amendment involved - in which case the amendment to the Dartmouth MPS would go to regional council. But since there isn't, you are correct it will just be the Harbour East Council voting on this.

Either way, there is an appeal process...I'm not too concerned.

Do you think that this will get turned down requiring an appeal (presumably URB).

cheers ...

[princeedward]

I've been watching what is happening with the proposed developments throughout HRM and frankly I think this process involving DA's is getting longer and longer and more complicated because of Public input which in turn slowing down growth. I think it is time we encourage the experts to handle the decision making, I think City staff and or, Halifax by design should make recommendations to Council, and, I think Council should vote based on these recommendations. I don't think public at large should have any input unless they are experts in certain fields pretaining to the subject development.
As for The Prince Albert I think it is a beautiful building bringing life to a community badly inneed of such a development in order to stay sustainable. It will be a great dissapointment to this community if this get voted down for the wrong reasons. Dartmouth should encourage more developments like this and there is no reason why downtown dartmouth should not be as good or as beautiful as Halifax .
Cheers.

[JET]

Lots of first time posters on this thread. Remarkable. Almost as if the developer is providing support for their project. :sly: Call me crazy.

[Jstaleness]

Dartmouth should encourage more developments like this and there is no reason why downtown dartmouth should not be as good or as beautiful as Halifax .
Cheers.

I agree. With King's Wharf in the early stages and being built at a pretty good pace we will soon see some headway. This one could only add more beauty.

[someone123]

I don't think public at large should have any input unless they are experts in certain fields pretaining to the subject development.

I disagree. Sometimes there really is an impact on nearby residents or there is some advice they can give that staff and others would not otherwise have thought about. Maybe some purely theoretical or technical fields do not have a place for public consultation, but planning and design definitely do not qualify.

It is completely reasonable to require developers of larger projects to have an evening where they present to the public and accept input. The problems stem not from public consultation itself but from the compounding of many delays brought about by a slow process, too many committees, appeals, anti-development councillors, excessive planning regulations, etc.

[ibnem2]

I disagree. Sometimes there really is an impact on nearby residents or there is some advice they can give that staff and others would not otherwise have thought about. Maybe some purely theoretical or technical fields do not have a place for public consultation, but planning and design definitely do not qualify.

It is completely reasonable to require developers of larger projects to have an evening where they present to the public and accept input. The problems stem not from public consultation itself but from the compounding of many delays brought about by a slow process, too many committees, appeals, anti-development councillors, excessive planning regulations, etc.

Yes it's reasonable for developers to hold public information sessions and to collect opinion and hopefully find a rational use for it. What isn't reasonable is HRM staff's fear of reprisal from their superiors (ultimately the Councillors), hence staff's continual procrastination and requests for information. The real issue is that Council empowers staff and then dis-empowers them. Staff cannot make confident decisions (who's looking over your shoulder now) and when they do, Council will favour public opinion over staff reports (mostly on controversial issues). Empower staff by giving councillors a rational voice supporting their initiatives. Don't let Council pander to uninformed mob mentalities - make Council do their job, so staff can do theirs.

cheers ...

[moody]

Lots of first time posters on this thread. Remarkable. Almost as if the developer is providing support for their project. :sly: Call me crazy.

Feels the same way to me. This development is nothing special.

[fenwick16]

Lots of first time posters on this thread. Remarkable. Almost as if the developer is providing support for their project. :sly: Call me crazy.

If developers can recommend this forum to others then cheers to them. Whatever it takes to get support for progress and jobs in the Halifax-area, Nova Scotia and all of the Maritime provinces.

I realize that progress must be tempered by reason but I see this development as being far better than what is there now.

[Empire]

If developers can recommend this forum to others then cheers to them. Whatever it takes to get support for progress and jobs in the Halifax-area, Nova Scotia and all of the Maritime provinces.

I realize that progress must be tempered by reason but I see this development as being far better than what is there now.

Indeed, and I see this development as far better than most that have gone up lately.

[beyeas]

If developers can recommend this forum to others then cheers to them. Whatever it takes to get support for progress and jobs in the Halifax-area, Nova Scotia and all of the Maritime provinces.

I realize that progress must be tempered by reason but I see this development as being far better than what is there now.

Exactly.... STV et al certainly don't hesitate to flood online comments at the CH, have facebook groups where their members can discuss (but then edit out members who don't agree with them etc). I am not sure that the developer is mobilizing people to make comments, but even if they are... so what? That is just simply using the same tools that STV/HT etc do all the time.

[ibnem2]

Exactly.... STV et al certainly don't hesitate to flood online comments at the CH, have facebook groups where their members can discuss (but then edit out members who don't agree with them etc). I am not sure that the developer is mobilizing people to make comments, but even if they are... so what? That is just simply using the same tools that STV/HT etc do all the time.

Not up on all of the abbreviations ... Who / what are STV and CH ?

Anyway, they appear to operate like the main stream media ... censoring and pushing their agenda at the expense of integrity. Happy to have a forum where I can provide opinion without censorship.

Cheers ...

[beyeas]

Not up on all of the abbreviations ... Who / what are STV and CH ?

Anyway, they appear to operate like the main stream media ... censoring and pushing their agenda at the expense of integrity. Happy to have a forum where I can provide opinion without censorship.

Cheers ...

Sorry... STV = Save The View coalition
HT = Heritage Trust
CH = Chronicle Herald

[ibnem2]

Just saw this in the Burnside News

http://www.burnsidenews.com/Business/2011-10-14/article-2777467/Search-for-facts-leads-developer-to-Burnside/1

cheers

[JET]

Just saw this in the Burnside News

http://www.burnsidenews.com/Business/2011-10-14/article-2777467/Search-for-facts-leads-developer-to-Burnside/1

cheers

it would be interesting to know what wind study was being referenced

[ibnem2]

it would be interesting to know what wind study was being referenced

Wind issue is way overplayed, but I heard that the developer will be presenting at the Fusion event tonight ... so go ask him.

http://www.fusionhalifax.ca/en/home/events/details/default.aspx?ec=bW9kZT0zJmV2ZW50PTIxNCZkdD0yMDExMTAxOCZjYXRJRD0w

Cheers

[Dmajackson]

Case 16898 - Development Agreement (http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/documents/10.1.3Case16898307PrinceAlbertRoad.pdf)

Slowly but surely this is moving through the approval process.

BTW don't know if this was mentioned previously but there is a twelve-storey residential project approved for this block as well (shown in one of the maps in the document).

[Pete Crawford]

BTW don't know if this was mentioned previously but there is a twelve-storey residential project approved for this block as well (shown in one of the maps in the document).

Do you have the link to the DA or any information on the 12 storey? First I've heard about it, and I live around there!

God, I hope it's the vacant lot beside Needs...

[fenwick16]

I just re-read Dmajackson's post - that there is an additional 12 storey proposed in addition to the one at the funeral home here (http://www.bing.com/maps/explore/#5003/0.6002=q:halifax,+ns:nelat:-33.8224190277359:nelong:151.295947863502:swlat:-33.884086972264:swlong:151.161193682594:nosp:0:adj:0/5872/style=be&lat=rfcvby&lon=9q3prp&alt=4.025099&z=21&h=176.022464&pid=5874).

According to the document, the additional 12 storey apartment would be at 339 Prince Albert Road, which according to Google maps is at this location - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=339+prince+albert+road,+dartmouth,+ns&ll=44.680291,-63.548162&spn=0.006606,0.016512&sll=44.680285,-63.548141&layer=c&cbp=13,127.1,,0,2.46&cbll=44.680291,-63.548162&gl=ca&hnear=339+Prince+Albert+Rd,+Dartmouth,+Nova+Scotia+B2Y+1N7&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&panoid=HfIzqg-M_CvqDZ1GKFyy-A

[ibnem2]

Do you have the link to the DA or any information on the 12 storey? First I've heard about it, and I live around there!

God, I hope it's the vacant lot beside Needs...

It's Not the old Ultramar (vacant lot) next to Needs. The vacant lot also falls under the 30 foot height limit.

The property at 337 is actually approved for 14 storeys from 2006 if memory serves me.

cheers ...

[Jstaleness]

Looking forward to both if built. Good neighborhood for these to help grow and expand.