HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 9:00 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,176
[Dartmouth] 169 Wyse Road | 31 m | 10 fl | Approved

WSP has unveiled a redevelopment proposal for the former strip club building at 169 Wyse Road (at Pelzent near Boland). There are conceptual massing and rationale available on Halifax's planning website;

Case 19500 Details


Rendering by WSP Group
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ

Last edited by Dmajackson; May 14, 2015 at 5:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 10:10 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
WSP has unveiled a redevelopment proposal for the former strip club building at 169 Wyse Road (at Pelzent near Boland). There are conceptual massing and rationale available on Halifax's planning website;

Case 19500 Details
Another case of the Application and the Traffic Impact Statement being prepared by the same corporate entity. No conflict of interest here !!

I wish such projects in locations adjacent to all amenities could be offered the option of providing no parking. This project will require the removal of a considerable amount of pyritic slate for 3 levels of parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 10:13 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post

I wish such projects in locations adjacent to all amenities could be offered the option of providing no parking. This project will require the removal of a considerable amount of pyritic slate for 3 levels of parking.
Me too, but would developers would go for it even if it were possible? I feel like the market isn't ready for it--even in much bigger cities, no-parking developments are rare enough to still be newsworthy and controversial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 10:50 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,217
The existing property has been the subject of HRM Building Inspection complaints and is before the Appeals Standing Cttee on May 14 2015

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCap...enda150514.php

9.2 DANGEROUS OR UNSIGHTLY PREMISES: DEMOLITIONS
9.2.1 Case #231273, 169 Wyse Road, Dartmouth

The sooner the eyesore is removed the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 11:50 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
WSP has unveiled a redevelopment proposal for the former strip club building at 169 Wyse Road (at Pelzent near Boland). There are conceptual massing and rationale available on Halifax's planning website;

Case 19500 Details


The colour scheme, massing and choice of materials all look good to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 3:03 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
WSP has unveiled a redevelopment proposal for the former strip club building at 169 Wyse Road (at Pelzent near Boland). There are conceptual massing and rationale available on Halifax's planning website;

Case 19500 Details
Thank god something is finally happening there.

Lokks like a Syrian restaurant is opening up next to it in the old Kel's Deli location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 4:33 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
The sooner the eyesore is removed the better.
Amen to that, Colin. It will be interesting to see how may of the one-time strip club opponents turn out now to rail against the WSP proposal. Too high; too dense; too much shadow on lovely Wyse Road. Why, we'll (literally!) take our lives in our hands just crossing the street. O the humanity.

I don't love the design but thank the developer for a thoughtful proposal to transform a decaying corner of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 5:09 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,254
Yeah, I agree. While there are details of the proposed structure that don't thrill me from an aesthetic point of view, whatever they put there will be a vast improvement over the present.

I can't see anyone living near this eyesore seriously opposing it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 6:54 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,217
Shadows won't be much of an issue except for a couple of houses to the west.
Noise was not an issue except for late night early/morning drunks, the elderly lady next door on Wyse didn't put up with any nonsense and she had lived there for a long time. The police had a few 'entertaining' incidents but my lips have to remain sealed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 6:54 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
Amen to that, Colin. It will be interesting to see how may of the one-time strip club opponents turn out now to rail against the WSP proposal. Too high; too dense; too much shadow on lovely Wyse Road. Why, we'll (literally!) take our lives in our hands just crossing the street. O the humanity.

I don't love the design but thank the developer for a thoughtful proposal to transform a decaying corner of the city.
I expect that there won't be much clammor about the height, but i might be wrong. There is a nice neighborhood with a central park in behind this development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:34 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Another case of the Application and the Traffic Impact Statement being prepared by the same corporate entity. No conflict of interest here !!

I wish such projects in locations adjacent to all amenities could be offered the option of providing no parking. This project will require the removal of a considerable amount of pyritic slate for 3 levels of parking.
I see it as the developer hiring engineers from WSP to conduct the traffic study and also hiring planners to see it through the application process. Many of the consulting engineers in town offer mechanical and electrical engineering services under the same roof - no one cries conspiracy there!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 8:36 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
To no one's surprise, the naysayers -- er, neighbours -- were out in force to loudly protest developer Ken Anthony's plan at a public meeting last night at the Wyse Road Holiday Inn.

Apparently content to hold onto the decaying former country bar cum strip club in their midst for awhile longer, about 50 people turned out to express their horror at the size, the height and the deadly traffic impacts.

One speaker is already mourning her lost privacy. "It's so massive. It makes me cry."

The 82 units will be the tipping point to a traffic nightmare. Intersecting Pelzant Street is already a "racetrack...there are terrible problems"

Of course the height is "insane...ten stories is an absolute no-no."

The opponents say they will be okay with the development, provided Anthony lops off the top six floors.

Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 12:11 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
All together now:

"It's TOO TALL!!!!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 1:33 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
...about 50 people turned out to express their horror at the size, the height and the deadly traffic impacts.
For a little bit more perspective, according to Metro Halifax there were 20 speakers and 13 of them were in opposition, Of course the critics dominate the coverage, including one who declared her six-year old son can now cross Wyse Road safely but, "I can't say that once this building's in here." Those 82 new residents will create "a lot of traffic".

Then there was the "young couple" who recently moved to the area for the "quiet...trees and green space" but are now "heartbroken" that a vacant eyesore could be replaced by apartments full of people.

Can Heritage Trust be far behind, wanting to preserve that historic example of peeler-bar moderne?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 1:42 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,254
Sounds like it's more just resistance to change vs any actual plausible reason for this not to proceed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 5:03 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
For a little bit more perspective, according to Metro Halifax there were 20 speakers and 13 of them were in opposition, Of course the critics dominate the coverage, including one who declared her six-year old son can now cross Wyse Road safely but, "I can't say that once this building's in here." Those 82 new residents will create "a lot of traffic".

Then there was the "young couple" who recently moved to the area for the "quiet...trees and green space" but are now "heartbroken" that a vacant eyesore could be replaced by apartments full of people.

Can Heritage Trust be far behind, wanting to preserve that historic example of peeler-bar moderne?
I sure wouldn't let a six year old cross Wyse Rd by himself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 6:25 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Sounds like it's more just resistance to change vs any actual plausible reason for this not to proceed.

Do public hearings of this sort ever really come up with plausible reasons for projects not to proceed though? They are really just a huge waste of time. It is a given in this town that the neighbors will never like any given proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 6:53 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Do public hearings of this sort ever really come up with plausible reasons for projects not to proceed though? They are really just a huge waste of time. It is a given in this town that the neighbors will never like any given proposal.
From what I've been reading here, it sounds like you are on the money. There must be a more functional way to do this then some random sample of residents complaining for it not to go through. Perhaps it needs to be set up more like a legal case, where each team pleads its case and an impartial judge and jury makes a decision.

Of course that would be a flawed system as well, but at the very least a little organized. Maybe they need to poll the entire neighborhood. Often the people who show up at these things are either strongly for or strongly against the project. The rest who are indifferent or at least not against the building probably would vote for it but wouldn't take the time to show up for a meeting about it (I'm guessing).

For the life of me, I can't imagine a neighborhood that had persevered through decades of noise and drunks from the cabaret opposing a project that will bring vitality and respectability to their area. Not wanting to purposely diss an area, but for years parts of that neighborhood would be considered somewhat sketchy...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 11:25 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
From what I've been reading here, it sounds like you are on the money. There must be a more functional way to do this then some random sample of residents complaining for it not to go through. Perhaps it needs to be set up more like a legal case, where each team pleads its case and an impartial judge and jury makes a decision.
I think you are right, OD Mark. Your comments suggest a quasi-judicial process like that followed by the NS Utility and Review Board, for example in its approach to the recent applications for dissolution by Springhill, Bridgetown and Hantsport.

In each of those cases -- well, with the possible exception of Bridgetown, which everyone agreed was a basket case -- the initial reaction to the proposed dissolutions was emotional and negative.

> Our community will lose its identity. (This doesn't fit our neighbourhood!)
> The new municipality will be too big. (It's too tall!)
> What will we leave for future generations? (Think of the children!!)

The UARB process strips the emotion away because it is very much evidence-based. You can gnash your teeth all you want, but the decision will be based on facts so better come to the hearing prepared.

Ironically, council decisions may end up challenged before the UARB. Why not transition the municipal first-level approval process away from lobbyists, politicians and staff toward a more arm's-length body? The reasons are entirely political and have very little to do with sound decision making.

In my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 11:44 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,231
I think this looks pretty good. It's much nicer than most of the other buildings nearby and it looks way better than the land-inefficient, car-dependent Clayton Park Specials going up on the urban fringe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
The UARB process strips the emotion away because it is very much evidence-based. You can gnash your teeth all you want, but the decision will be based on facts so better come to the hearing prepared.

Ironically, council decisions may end up challenged before the UARB. Why not transition the municipal first-level approval process away from lobbyists, politicians and staff toward a more arm's-length body? The reasons are entirely political and have very little to do with sound decision making.

In my opinion.
This still sounds like an expensive, mostly redundant process. I don't think it makes sense that so much of this is decided on a case-by-case basis when most developments are fundamentally standard and repeatable. There is really nothing unique about this building or its surroundings; dozens of these have gone up already in the city. I agree that the requirements should be more evidence based, but they should also for the most part be set ahead of time, as they are with HRM by Design. Right now the city is doing a mini, ad-hoc HRM by Design for every single mid-sized or larger development outside of downtown.

The uncertainty alone increases the cost of housing in the city. Land prices are based on speculative development value and the long lead times make it hard for developers to bring units to market as demand warrants. I think these problems explain why there are so many crappy suburban buildings even though they don't actually seem preferable to anybody.
__________________
flickr
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 > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.