[Halifax] SOQU Residences (6353 Pepperell) | 32 m | 10 fl | U/C

[DigitalNinja]

I didn't see that we had a thread for this development. Not sure if there were any updates on it but the case and renderings can be viewed here:

https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...-quinpool-road

[Keith P.]

Speaking on Qunipool, can someone refresh my memory as to the status of the old St. Pat's High site? I remember Jenny Watts was pushing for some planning rules and had a bunch of alternatives proposed by planning staff that the public got to vote on, but nothing has happened since. It would be nice to get something going there before the Urban Roots Farm crazies lay claim to it and prevent anything from happening there for a generation.

[Dmajackson]

Public Information Meeting will be held next week, October 11, 2018 @ 6:30pm @ St. Andrews United Church

Case #20520 - 6324-6330 Quinpool Road

[someone123]

Rendering:


Source

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Speaking on Qunipool, can someone refresh my memory as to the status of the old St. Pat's High site? I remember Jenny Watts was pushing for some planning rules and had a bunch of alternatives proposed by planning staff that the public got to vote on, but nothing has happened since. It would be nice to get something going there before the Urban Roots Farm crazies lay claim to it and prevent anything from happening there for a generation.

Are these all HRM-owned sites?

- St. Pat's
- St. Pat's-Alexandra
- Bloomfield

It's hard to believe that these needed to sit empty for years given all of the development taking place around the city.

Of course we also have the TexPark redevelopment which was a disaster. And we still have a big parking lot on the former infirmary site behind the library.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Are these all HRM-owned sites?

- St. Pat's
- St. Pat's-Alexandra
- Bloomfield

It's hard to believe that these needed to sit empty for years given all of the development taking place around the city.

Of course we also have the TexPark redevelopment which was a disaster. And we still have a big parking lot on the former infirmary site behind the library.

St. Pats is owned by HRM who have done nothing with it other than to grass it over. As I posted previously, Watts had all sorts of plans developed for the public to vote on and then it all just stopped.

St. Pats-Alexandra was the subject of a lawsuit by Joe Metlege after he won the bif for it and then the neighborhood activists threw a tantrum and HRM reneged. Joe sued and won so I understand he now owns it. Not sure what the plans are.

Bloomfield was the biggest debacle. Despite all the grand plans developed by Imagine Bloomfield, the NDP govt wanted it for Housing NS to develop so HRM let them buy it, then nothing was done. The Imagine Bloomfield folks rightfully got POed and walked away. When the govt changed provincially the Liberals kiboshed the grand plans which were way beyond the ability of Housing NS to accomplish reasonably. It is still owned by the province IIRC.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

St. Pats is owned by HRM who have done nothing with it other than to grass it over. As I posted previously, Watts had all sorts of plans developed for the public to vote on and then it all just stopped.

HRM doesn't want to sell St. Pats until it has appropriate zoning on it (i.e. top dollar). They rushed through a project to do zoning just for the site, but then pulled back on that to integrate it into Centre Plan. So once Centre Plan is approved, the sale of St. Pats can go ahead.

Bloomfield was the biggest debacle. Despite all the grand plans developed by Imagine Bloomfield, the NDP govt wanted it for Housing NS to develop so HRM let them buy it, then nothing was done. The Imagine Bloomfield folks rightfully got POed and walked away. When the govt changed provincially the Liberals kiboshed the grand plans which were way beyond the ability of Housing NS to accomplish reasonably. It is still owned by the province IIRC.

Bloomfield is still owned by HRM. The sale was contingent on Housing NS getting a development agreement for the site, which they never did. Now it sits there with HRM paying for security and maintenance. I don't blame HRM for this one at all; the NDP came in with a huge overbid (how could HRM say no) and no plan to make it happen. What a mess.

And we still have a big parking lot on the former infirmary site behind the library.

That's now owned by Dalhousie. It's part of their campus master plan.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

HRM doesn't want to sell St. Pats until it has appropriate zoning on it (i.e. top dollar). They rushed through a project to do zoning just for the site, but then pulled back on that to integrate it into Centre Plan. So once Centre Plan is approved, the sale of St. Pats can go ahead.

These sorts of dependencies ("we'll wait for X then move forward with Y") seem to be how enormous delays are created. The Centre Plan has been in the works for what, 8 or 10 years? Is it clear when it will be put into effect?

This approach is often used as a stall tactic. A flagrant example of this is how a few cities have been studying whether or not to allow ride sharing for about a decade now, i.e. discussion of implementation of something many other cities have already implemented has taken longer than it took for the Apollo program to get somebody to the moon and back.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Bloomfield is still owned by HRM. The sale was contingent on Housing NS getting a development agreement for the site, which they never did. Now it sits there with HRM paying for security and maintenance. I don't blame HRM for this one at all; the NDP came in with a huge overbid (how could HRM say no) and no plan to make it happen. What a mess.

If that is so, what is keeping HRM from issuing a new RFP call for the site? Please don't tell me the Centre Plan...

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

St. Pats-Alexandra was the subject of a lawsuit by Joe Metlege after he won the bif for it and then the neighborhood activists threw a tantrum and HRM reneged. Joe sued and won so I understand he now owns it. Not sure what the plans are..

As of last week HRM still owned St Pat's A. The deal has yet to be finalized. The settlement terms required that the property be closed on within so many days following adoption of centre plan or by December 31 2018, whichever was first. So either Council changed the terms and extended closing again or its out of contract. Either way another failed school sale.

[Dmajackson]

Source: Dexel Developments

[atbw]

Looks like Dexel has a lot of grey stone cladding to get rid of!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by atbw

Looks like Dexel has a lot of grey stone cladding to get rid of!

There's a wider achromatic trend these days. Just like how people were doing earth tones and avocado green in the 70's they're painting everything black and grey in 2019. I like these buildings more than the old seafoam green spandrel ones but I like "warmer" looking buildings more, and buildings with more details and artwork. Sleek glass and metal facades look good mostly due to novelty and contrast with other buildings.

The Quinpool proposal is replacing a McDonald's and a building covered in grey corrugated metal, and the Pepperell site was a parking lot for 20 years, so these will be a net positive even if you don't like the grey.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Quinpool proposal is replacing a McDonald's and a building covered in grey corrugated metal, and the Pepperell site was a parking lot for 20 years, so these will be a net positive even if you don't like the grey.

Oh I don't really have much against it - I think it looks good and every decade has its trends. Just thought it was amusing to see three developments with the same cladding all right next to each other on their website. All three are also bringing a lot of life, density and street presence to their respective sites, too.

[someone123]

I am not a big fan of the Quinpool one. It's too jumbled. I count 9 different mini-facades in 3 or 4 different styles.

Another trend we see is huge building footprints developed as one building but with attempts to break up the mass and simulate multiple smaller buildings. Unless they actually look like multiple buildings I find the effect is usually strange, like McMansions with a bunch of different rooflines.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's not as bad as some I've seen. At least the colours chosen are cohesive, but I do agree that it looks busy and the proportions make it look too wide and not tall enough. And as mentioned it will be an improvement over what is currently occupying the spot.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Looks like this one's getting in under the wire:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ents-1.5214454

[Dmajackson]

Two years and this is still somehow going through the approval process;

Case 20520 Development Agreement

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Two years and this is still somehow going through the approval process;

Case 20520 Development Agreement

... and the drawings the proponent included didn't get the cardinal directions correct. North is South and Up is Down in Schedules B and C.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Two years and this is still somehow going through the approval process;

Case 20520 Development Agreement

HRM Planning must have put a rush on it in that case. Normally stuff takes 10 years here.