HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

    Skye Halifax I in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2011, 3:04 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
It will be interesting to see more detailed renderings. However, I thought the ramparts maximum was a strict Halifax bylaw - am I wrong?

One question: if this was proposed in Dartmouth where the ramparts maximum restriction doesn't exist then wouldn't it have a better chance of being considered?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2011, 4:55 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,174
This building is under construction in London:


Source


Somebody should let them know that this 310 meter tower is unacceptable -- there are heritage buildings nearby and the tallest building in the neighbourhood is only 142 meters!
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2011, 7:33 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
It will be interesting to see more detailed renderings. However, I thought the ramparts maximum was a strict Halifax bylaw - am I wrong?

One question: if this was proposed in Dartmouth where the ramparts maximum restriction doesn't exist then wouldn't it have a better chance of being considered?
If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2011, 7:43 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
What I found interesting was not the people, but the process... they had broad public consultation, they have view planes, they have a lot of development rules, but not a lot of specific design criteria, they have height restrictions. What was missing from the article was what kind of controls they have in Gas Town and Granville Island, for example. The article was pointed out to by someone who thought that Halifax in 2011 is where Vancouver was in their planning cycle in the early or mid 1990s.
That's a very interesting point. I think Gastown falls under the downtown east side bylaw or plan, whereas Granville Island, I'm not sure about. The link I posted to the downtown plan (that had the map) should allow you to back track into the main downtown policy/plans/bylaw listing.

I think the efforts being made for a regional core consolidated LUB (that will be along the same lines as HbD) would certainly agree with your point on design criteria. My only hope is that for the low density residential areas, they won't invoke much design rules. That was the problem here in Calgary when infill development (mainly single detached dwellings) started in the inner city. The hope was to get top quality homes to raise the tax base, which has been very successful. But the process and policy has caused many appeals boil down to 'your house is bigger than mine, I don't like it'. That's why it can take up to 6 months to get a permit for a house in the inner city...yup, 6 months. These situations are rare (may be 3 out of every 10), but still...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2011, 7:44 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.
It was originally part of the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy. But with HbD it did put the rule into the downtown LUB. So it would be a part of the downtown Bylaw.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2011, 7:24 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
This building is under construction in London:


Source


Somebody should let them know that this 310 meter tower is unacceptable -- there are heritage buildings nearby and the tallest building in the neighbourhood is only 142 meters!
Hilarious, looks like the building in North Korea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2011, 9:21 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Hilarious, looks like the building in North Korea.
Quite the knee-slapper.

Whatever this skye discussion is turning into, I hope the fact of this site's immanence with emptiness weighs heavily on your minds. This site could easily be developed, given the available demand in the market. Both the city and the developer are to blame in this case--but the placement of blame does not move a development forward.

I support the Skye proposal. I don't think such a distinguished landmark must be limited to being infrastructure of public use, such as the CN Tower in Toronto. These residential towers are simply allowing more people to live downtown, which is what we want, in a sophisticated home, which is what they want. Why turn up our noses?

Large, skyline-breaking, iconic buildings that may be geared toward use by the public have a better case for picking Quinpool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2011, 4:14 AM
resetcbu1's Avatar
resetcbu1 resetcbu1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
Quite the knee-slapper.

Whatever this skye discussion is turning into, I hope the fact of this site's immanence with emptiness weighs heavily on your minds. This site could easily be developed, given the available demand in the market. Both the city and the developer are to blame in this case--but the placement of blame does not move a development forward.

I support the Skye proposal. I don't think such a distinguished landmark must be limited to being infrastructure of public use, such as the CN Tower in Toronto. These residential towers are simply allowing more people to live downtown, which is what we want, in a sophisticated home, which is what they want. Why turn up our noses?

Large, skyline-breaking, iconic buildings that may be geared toward use by the public have a better case for picking Quinpool.
I think these towers would be groundbreaking and iconic in our skyline and like mentioned a few times lately, not all high-rise development need be office. Honestly they remind me a little of the WTC towers just IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2011, 6:03 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
My worry on this site is the developer. The developer came forward with Twisted Sisters, as a 'landmark' proposal. He went through the riger of the approvals process and if I'm not mistaken even an appeal but won. Great...but what do we have now? Nothing...

So now just as his existing approval still stands (but requires an extension to the commencement date since it's passed) - he comes forward with this proposal. It's hard to take the developer seriously. It makes me nervous that he's pulling a typical ploy that happens out here in Alberta.

Developer A walks in with a great idea - revolutionary, that will change a community. Fights through all the NIMBY and gets the approval - instantly, the land value goes up because this proposal he's put forward is supposed to be so great. But then, he puts the land and approval up for sale, makes a huge profit and disappears. Leaving Developer B having spent all his $ to make Developer A's project move forward. So then Developer B might build it, or might come up with his own 'even more dreamy idea', get the approval, land value goes up, Developer B sells the land and the process starts all over again...

I get the sneaking fear that this maybe nothing but a mechanism to make the land more valuable to sell at a huge profit. I find it unlikely that this will get built. That's just been my experience. I remember working in Fort Mac and the guy's came in proposing Bond Towers - these huge towers to go in the middle of the downtown. They talked a big talk, yet to this date - NOTHING. They applied for an extension to their permit approval, which was granted and then when it lapsed, they applied for another one but nothing has happened...this is why I view this proposal with a level of doubt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2011, 10:08 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 19,788
Even if this proposal doesn't see the light of day, Halifax will see an icon under construction soon. The city is doing great right now, and with the DND contract, it's gonna be awesome! Do not lose hope my fellow Canadians! Halifax will rise again! (literally )
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2011, 12:29 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
Even if this proposal doesn't see the light of day, Halifax will see an icon under construction soon. The city is doing great right now, and with the DND contract, it's gonna be awesome! Do not lose hope my fellow Canadians! Halifax will rise again! (literally )
Thanks, it is nice to see support from the other end of the country. Halifax and Vancouver have a lot in common. Vancouver has done a great job managing tremendous growth while maintaining a beautiful city.

I would like to see some of that 'can do' spirit foster in Halifax.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 1:56 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 431
Downtown twin towers to incorporate 'visionary' design

United Gulf Developments Ltd. says snazzy lobby will give property iconic status

Developers of the proposed $350-million Skye Halifax project have added a new element to the structure that they say will elevate it to iconic status.

The proposed 48-storey towers at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets — bent to look like twin sails catching the wind — will be connected via a giant, 13,000-square-foot lobby that will have 66-foot high walls and two large glass-like balls that appear to be suspended from the ceiling.

Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said the balls will give off a glass illusion and appear to be different colours depending on the time of day and available lighting.

Peter Clewes, out of Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance, designed the “visionary” atrium.

“It’s very creative and very unique. I haven’t seen it actually done anywhere,” Saberi said, noting the hope is to have the lobby become the focal point for downtown residents and visitors alike.

“We are hoping for that wow factor,” he said. “We are hoping for that experience that it creates, and the rooms from hotel and some of the residences that are going to be above it. They are going to be overlooking that lobby and there will be a lot of action in that lobby. It’s a lobby for the (buildings), the restaurants are going to be overflowing into it, and there will be seating outside.”

At 85 feet per tower, the buildings will have a smaller footprint than its predecessor, the controversial Twisted Sisters project that was scuttled earlier this year in favour of Skye Halifax.

Rest of story in the link below-

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bus...sionary-design

Well they seem to have big hopes for this project. Let's hope that their less than stellar track record on building something on this site doesn't kill it. I'd like to see these two towers go up -- imagine the look on Phil Pacey's face if they broke ground on these guys...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 2:27 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
No. The site isn't in the view planes. The bylaw simply does not apply, aside from suggesting that this actually is a good site for a tall building.
The way the view planes were created doesn't suggest this is a good site for a tall building, it suggests it's a site where you can build a tall building. It's quite clear the urban design implications of the view planes were not well thought out - I'd hardly take their absence as an endorsement for tall buildings, rather it's a lack of a restriction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 3:10 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.
The rampart maximum is not a reccomendation, it is policy. It is part of the Land Use By-law for the Peninsula. It has been continued, along with the viewplanes, as part of the new Planning Strategy for Downtown (HRMbyDesign).

This is the single biggest thing stopping this proposal. Council can not legally enter into a development agreement that violates the Municipal Planning Strategy or Land Use By-law. That's what all the URB appeals and court cases from the Heritage Trust have been about: will the development violate the by-laws? So far only one development, the Midtown, was overturned on appeal. The Midtown was overturned based on it's height in relation to the Citadel, not view planes.

This project (I'm assuming it breaks the rampart maximum by quite a bit) can only be approved if Council first changes both documents to remove or amend the rampart maximum. That's a long process - minimum a couple of months, realistically probably six or more. Plus, are councillors going to jump on board and rework a long-standing provision, that they just reapproved a couple of years ago through HRMbyDesign? I find it unlikely.

If United Gulf is under the impression that the rampart maximum is a mere recommendation, they are delusional and wasting a lot of time and money. Since this is a $350 million 'proposal' I would hope they know the basic policy they're dealing with, which leads me to believe this is not a very serious propsal. As many others have pointed out they might be hoping to leverage an extension on the Twisted Sisters, or maybe trying to pump up the value of their property. If this turns into a real proposal I guess they like going to court and the URB, or waiting endlessly for unlikely by-law amendments.

For those who like policy:

Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-law

CITADEL RAMPARTS 26B

In addition to all other provisions of this by-law, no development permit shall be issued for any development within Schedule A that is greater than 90 ft. in height, unless such development will not be visible above the topmost line of the earthworks of the Citadel ramparts from an eye level 5.5 ft. above ground level at any of the specified viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel. Elevations and coordinate values for the viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel and elevations to the topmost line of the earthworks on the Citadel ramparts are shown on ZM-17 (Height Precinct Map).

Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy

[u] 3.3.1 Heights Framework [u/]

The maximum heights framework provides a rational and balanced height pattern resulting from the synthesis of a complex set of urban design considerations tailored to the downtown Halifax context including:

(g) upholding the Citadel View Planes and Ramparts requirements from the Land Use Bylaw for Halifax Peninsula.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 3:20 PM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmcclassic View Post
Downtown twin towers to incorporate 'visionary' design

United Gulf Developments Ltd. says snazzy lobby will give property iconic status

Developers of the proposed $350-million Skye Halifax project have added a new element to the structure that they say will elevate it to iconic status.

The proposed 48-storey towers at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets — bent to look like twin sails catching the wind — will be connected via a giant, 13,000-square-foot lobby that will have 66-foot high walls and two large glass-like balls that appear to be suspended from the ceiling.

Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said the balls will give off a glass illusion and appear to be different colours depending on the time of day and available lighting.

Peter Clewes, out of Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance, designed the “visionary” atrium.

“It’s very creative and very unique. I haven’t seen it actually done anywhere,” Saberi said, noting the hope is to have the lobby become the focal point for downtown residents and visitors alike.

“We are hoping for that wow factor,” he said. “We are hoping for that experience that it creates, and the rooms from hotel and some of the residences that are going to be above it. They are going to be overlooking that lobby and there will be a lot of action in that lobby. It’s a lobby for the (buildings), the restaurants are going to be overflowing into it, and there will be seating outside.”

At 85 feet per tower, the buildings will have a smaller footprint than its predecessor, the controversial Twisted Sisters project that was scuttled earlier this year in favour of Skye Halifax.

Rest of story in the link below-

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bus...sionary-design

Well they seem to have big hopes for this project. Let's hope that their less than stellar track record on building something on this site doesn't kill it. I'd like to see these two towers go up -- imagine the look on Phil Pacey's face if they broke ground on these guys...

Just great! Two glass balls below the phallic tower....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 3:25 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,740
Honestly, I love the balls. I saw them a few weeks ago and they were what got me really excited and on board with the project. Halifax has nothing like this and it would be a great piece of modern architecture for the city.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 4:06 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly View Post
The way the view planes were created doesn't suggest this is a good site for a tall building, it suggests it's a site where you can build a tall building. It's quite clear the urban design implications of the view planes were not well thought out - I'd hardly take their absence as an endorsement for tall buildings, rather it's a lack of a restriction.
Right, but it is a "good" site in the sense that it has less of an impact on views and was part of an original compromise to allow taller buildings in some locations. Either that or the view planes were poorly designed.

This does violate the ramparts bylaw but that is one of the worst HRM bylaws in that it has a huge side effect (no tall buildings anywhere downtown) but a very narrow purpose (make sure that somebody standing in the parade square inside the Citadel can't see anything). I do not think it is reasonable or helpful and I think it should be thrown out, along with the ill-conceived idea that "heritage" means banning modern architecture. I believe that some heritage advocates have turned it into a "sacred cow" because they recognize that it is one way to prevent highrise construction downtown. Banning tall buildings may or may not be a good idea, but it should be debated on its own merits.

Bylaws have been changed frequently in anticipation of particular developments and I'm sure United Gulf is aware of the situation. Even if we suppose they do intend to build this, why would they promote it by stating that it has a low chance of success or a painful approval process ahead? They wouldn't, because they are marketing the buildings. Their absurdly optimistic assessments of the situation aren't by themselves proof that this isn't a serious proposal.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2011, 9:16 PM
FuzzyWuz FuzzyWuz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoser111 View Post
Just great! Two glass balls below the phallic tower....
Darn. Beat me to it.

Not that I'd ever stoop so low as to make that joke.


...never.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2011, 12:09 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 669
This project might have "balls" but what it really needs is "brains." Hillbilly sums it up nicely, it's difficult to see this one as being remotely credible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2011, 12:10 AM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 446
If you're going to spend that kind of cash on 48-storey towers, shouldn't you brag about how "iconic" the TOWERS will be? No one at King's Wharf is bragging about how "iconic" the marina's going to be. Or what about the water taxi?

I'm sure the lobby will be awesome. When I leave the lobby, I'll look up at the towers and think how ugly they are.
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 3:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.