HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > SSP: Local Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:44 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,548
Problems like this basically amount to Russian roulette. Maybe this will just pass, or maybe it will become a twisted cause célèbre for the Save the View crowd even though this is a great project that has been carefully planned for years.

Most cities do not even have this layer of red tape to worry about. HRM by Design has supposedly decreased the average approval time, but I wonder what the average time to a building permit is when you factor in bureaucratic delays like this one, the Jazz building permit refusal, or the delays for the Drum condos. It seems like a substantial number of routine development projects in Halifax run into bureaucratic problems. Some projects are never built, and we do not know how many are never even proposed because development instead goes to suburban areas or other cities that are friendlier to investment.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:14 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
A view plane amendment would set a new precedent though.. I don't think they've been amended before. Some people will probably still fight this just out of principle.
How right you are. From Saturday's Herald:

"Enter Phil Pacey, who speaks for the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

“The developer does not have to encroach on the viewplane,” Pacey said Friday. “He has all sorts of other alternatives. I believe that the development agreement is quite clear that he is not allowed to encroach on the viewplane. He signed that document in full knowledge of the facts and it’s now up to him to live with the agreement that he has signed.”

Metlege doesn’t need a curtain wall on the eastern side of the building, Pacey said. “He can certainly live within the rules. The viewplanes were enacted in 1974. It is now almost 40 years that developers have been complying with those rules and this particular landowner isn’t any different than any other landowner in the city.”

Extending farther into the viewplane is against the law and should not be allowed, Pacey said. “The viewplanes legislation is extremely important to Halifax. It is something that people are very proud of. It is something that we have not allowed exceptions to and it would be ex-!tremely inappropriate to change the bylaw when there’s a very simple solution, which is for this particular landowner to change his plans.”


Now old Phil is an expert on building engineering too. How ridiculous can one person be? All this is blocking from any perspective is a view of a few clouds. What a clownass.

Last edited by Keith P.; Apr 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:39 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,400
HRM Development Process theme music...

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 1:36 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Most cities do not even have this layer of red tape to worry about. HRM by Design has supposedly decreased the average approval time, but I wonder what the average time to a building permit is when you factor in bureaucratic delays like this one, the Jazz building permit refusal, or the delays for the Drum condos.
Only Drum is inside of HRMbD area, the rest are still under the old rules.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 2:04 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
How right you are. From Saturday's Herald:

"Enter Phil Pacey, who speaks for the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

“The developer does not have to encroach on the viewplane,” Pacey said Friday. “He has all sorts of other alternatives. I believe that the development agreement is quite clear that he is not allowed to encroach on the viewplane. He signed that document in full knowledge of the facts and it’s now up to him to live with the agreement that he has signed.”

Metlege doesn’t need a curtain wall on the eastern side of the building, Pacey said. “He can certainly live within the rules. The viewplanes were enacted in 1974. It is now almost 40 years that developers have been complying with those rules and this particular landowner isn’t any different than any other landowner in the city.”

Extending farther into the viewplane is against the law and should not be allowed, Pacey said. “The viewplanes legislation is extremely important to Halifax. It is something that people are very proud of. It is something that we have not allowed exceptions to and it would be ex-!tremely inappropriate to change the bylaw when there’s a very simple solution, which is for this particular landowner to change his plans.”


Now old Phil is an expert on building engineering too. How ridiculous can one person be? All this is blocking from any perspective is a view of a few clouds. What a clownass.

I am starting to wonder if Phil Pacey has some sort of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He seems to become obsessed with such trivial matters.

Also from the Chronicle Herald story (a more rational opinion from Councillor Uteck): http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...ment-hits-snag

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said the changes would mean little to the viewplanes from the Citadel.

“Kudos to the developer that they’re that honest to come forward to us,” Uteck said. “They’d already gotten the permits.”

She called the encroachment inconsequential. “From Citadel Hill you’re not going to notice a difference. All you’re going to notice is a brand new-looking building.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:20 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said the changes would mean little to the viewplanes from the Citadel.

“Kudos to the developer that they’re that honest to come forward to us,” Uteck said. “They’d already gotten the permits.”

She called the encroachment inconsequential. “From Citadel Hill you’re not going to notice a difference. All you’re going to notice is a brand new-looking building.”
A brand new-looking building of which will be in a viewplane people are hungry to see fill with more new-looking buildings.

This redevelopment needs to happen and happen soon. I was hoping for a summer start, but now we're looking at a five fuckin month delay AT LEAST. Shit like this only adds fuel to the fire of local rage toward the ridiculousness of the approval process in Halifax and our laws relating to heritage, and even more so adds to the public desire of starkly breaking away from this tradition -- and building something like Skye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:33 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
... this is a great project that has been carefully planned for years....
Maybe not carefully enough? Seems odd that they missed the fact that this encroached on a view plane. Since view planes are (in theory, and barring the loss of monuments they're measured from) measurable and not open to interpretation, this is different than arguing about issues of "compatibility" or inherent heritage "value"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:59 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Only Drum is inside of HRMbD area, the rest are still under the old rules.
You are correct, but I'm wondering what those 6 or 9 month approval times take into account. My guess is that they do not factor in delays like this one or the Drum condo problem.

Is anybody surprised that Phil Pacey has chosen to take an extreme position on this issue? It must be very frustrating to spend a long time putting together a complicated development proposal and still have to deal with this level of zealotry.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 7:22 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Maybe not carefully enough? Seems odd that they missed the fact that this encroached on a view plane. Since view planes are (in theory, and barring the loss of monuments they're measured from) measurable and not open to interpretation, this is different than arguing about issues of "compatibility" or inherent heritage "value"
Well, guess what? The monuments have somehow been "lost" since the ridiculous viewplanes were originally established and so - somehow - a new survey was conducted. That led to re-drawing the viewplanes and the result is that Fenwick encroaches on them. Nothing to do with the developer, nothing to do with the design - it is all just bureaucratic nonsense. The entire concept should be eliminated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 8:16 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,093
We should invoice Pacey for wasting our fucking tax dollars with this bullshit.

Goddamn monkey wrench.

I'm sick of this nonsense holding up well planned and consulted projects... why the fuck does anything the HT says now even matter?

Its going to get built with other major projects in Halifax regardless.

What these fuckers don't get is that development is inevitable... they can hide behind legislation now, but this is all going to change in the future.

Your'e so great HT, imposing on other peoples rights. This brings new meaning to heritage nazis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 8:24 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Halifax
Posts: 560
Too many view planes

I like the idea of being able to see the harbor from the citadel. But any more than 3 planes is just too much. Anybody can see that there is a body of water down here with 3 glimpses of it and should head on down to the harbor and enjoy it close up. The idea that we must see forever is absurd. Why should we be able to see the mouth of the harbor and the North West Arm and Bedford all from one spot. Go down to Point Pleasant Park if you want to see the mouth of the harbor or drive out Purcell's Cove Rd. Walk down to the Public Gardens and walk thru them. Take the Bedford Hwy out to Bedford and enjoy the view all along the way. These view planes should be fewer and offer nothing more than a glimpse. We have one of the most beautiful settings for a city, and we must check it out from more places than the hill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 9:24 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,178
Not to mention that virtually nobody goes to Citadel Hill to see the harbour anyway. The "inside the ramparts" prohibitions are even more absurd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 9:31 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
I like the idea of being able to see the harbor from the citadel. But any more than 3 planes is just too much. Anybody can see that there is a body of water down here with 3 glimpses of it and should head on down to the harbor and enjoy it close up. The idea that we must see forever is absurd. Why should we be able to see the mouth of the harbor and the North West Arm and Bedford all from one spot. Go down to Point Pleasant Park if you want to see the mouth of the harbor or drive out Purcell's Cove Rd. Walk down to the Public Gardens and walk thru them. Take the Bedford Hwy out to Bedford and enjoy the view all along the way. These view planes should be fewer and offer nothing more than a glimpse. We have one of the most beautiful settings for a city, and we must check it out from more places than the hill.
The view planes are fundamentally about preserving historical authenticity, not making the city more beautiful. The point is not to offer visitors the "finest views" but to allow them to experience more or less the same views that would have been present when it was an active military fortress. This is why heritage groups often fight to preserve the view of the oil refinery.

It all comes down to a tension between two different approaches to creating an interesting city: what we have now is a very academic approach that requires people to reflect on their surroundings and read up on the area's history. What I think a lot of people want (or even think that the view planes are meant for) is to preserve the most attractive views of the harbour while filling in the unattractive ones (like the refinery) with buildings or monuments, creating a very real improvement of the aesthetics that you really only have to see, not think about, to enjoy. I think a careful balance of the two is the best approach, but even that would require a revision of the view planes.

The Fenwick viewplane violation might be "insignificant" in that it won't really affect any views but it is "significant" in that if it is amended, we will no longer be able to say "the view planes are absolute and cannot be/have never been changed". This is of course much more important to some people than others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 9:35 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,178
I wish someone on Council had the cojones to move a major amendment or outright repeal of the viewplanes. At least that would get this issue on the table and let this generation start taking some control over the situation instead of being held hostage by a decision made in the 1970s by people who no longer represent us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 9:36 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Not to mention that virtually nobody goes to Citadel Hill to see the harbour anyway. The "inside the ramparts" prohibitions are even more absurd.
I think that if we, as a city, have to have the ramparts bylaw imposed on us, then there should be more events held within the Citadel so that people can enjoy this unique atmosphere. Right now it is seen as "being for tourists" and "stifling development" but it would actually be a very interesting venue for things like art shows, concerts, even raves. Since the interior is basically all stone I don't think that maintenance would be a huge issue? Everything is inherently very hard to break. I guess it's kind of the same argument as "Should the Public Gardens be open for the winter?"; are these parks fragile artifacts that need to be protected from the public, or are they urban treasures that are meant to be enjoyed from within?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 5:34 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 13,314
You'd think for such a high profile project that they would have released an actual rendering by now.
__________________
Alberta 2014 - 4.2 million | Calgary 2014 - 1.5 million | Edmonton 2014 - 1.4 million
Alberta 2024 - 5.2 million | Calgary 2024 - 2.0 million | Edmonton 2024 - 1.8 million

Fortis et liber
Strong & free
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 7:36 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I think that if we, as a city, have to have the ramparts bylaw imposed on us, then there should be more events held within the Citadel so that people can enjoy this unique atmosphere. Right now it is seen as "being for tourists" and "stifling development" but it would actually be a very interesting venue for things like art shows, concerts, even raves. Since the interior is basically all stone I don't think that maintenance would be a huge issue? Everything is inherently very hard to break. I guess it's kind of the same argument as "Should the Public Gardens be open for the winter?"; are these parks fragile artifacts that need to be protected from the public, or are they urban treasures that are meant to be enjoyed from within?
More events inside the Citadel would be something for which I'd advocate. It is a unique space that has the potential to host a variety of events. We do not utilise it nearly as much as we could be.

And in terms of the Public Gardens, I haven't really considered it to be fragile...just ugly and boring, during the winter. I've assumed people aren't totally crazy, and won't entertain themselves by trampling all over the covered flowerbeds, many of which have shrubs that are wrapped for winter protection.

We would need to suddenly be concerned with snow removal as well; though, this is something to which I'd look forward because the space inside the Public Gardens, with paths freshly cleared of snow, would be quite dramatically different than to what we're accustomed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 12:29 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
You'd think for such a high profile project that they would have released an actual rendering by now.
Several renderings were released a couple of years ago. I don't think the plans have changed since then. Here is the Templeton Properties website link with several renderings (before and after) - http://www.fenwicktower.ca/vision

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 10:22 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 13,314
Yeah that's not a rendering that is a drawing.

I mean an actual rendering where it looks (relatively) real.
__________________
Alberta 2014 - 4.2 million | Calgary 2014 - 1.5 million | Edmonton 2014 - 1.4 million
Alberta 2024 - 5.2 million | Calgary 2024 - 2.0 million | Edmonton 2024 - 1.8 million

Fortis et liber
Strong & free
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2012, 5:33 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,250
Those types of drawings are renderings. The term doesn't refer specifically to computer-generated imagery.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > SSP: Local Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.