HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2013, 6:07 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,124
[Halifax] Gorsebrook Park | 30m | 10fl | U/C

As mentioned in General Updates & News the proposed towers for 1034-1056 Wellington Street have moved into the public consultation process.

Case 18565 Details

Application Package (floor plans, renderings, studies, rationale, ect)
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2013, 9:43 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Here are a few images taken from the pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...ionPackage.pdf

It looks like a decent project and it doesn't look out of place next to the other mid-rise towers.





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2013, 1:07 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Here are a few images taken from the pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...ionPackage.pdf

It looks like a decent project and it doesn't look out of place next to the other mid-rise towers.


The "at grade" street level interaction looks fine with this. No podium with a blank wall. Lots of open balconies, and it appears like there may be outdoor space with the ground floor units too. No worse than a row of townhouses, which had been touted as the ideal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2013, 5:01 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
The "at grade" street level interaction looks fine with this. No podium with a blank wall. Lots of open balconies, and it appears like there may be outdoor space with the ground floor units too. No worse than a row of townhouses, which had been touted as the ideal?
From a contextual perspective; the height is fine given the adjacent buildings - which establish a height profile for the street. That said, I have a small problem with the podium - I think it's one floor too high given the podium of the 'round' apartment building.

So I think I'd look to make that change, but aside from that I don't really have too much of an issue with it. The only thing I'd push beyond that would be a green roof and a few more trees on the site if possible and then giver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2013, 6:27 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,124
The Public Information Meeting has been scheduled for November 20th, 2013 at 7pm at Saint Mary's University Atrium Room.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 4:55 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,124
Apparently 125 people showed up to the public information meeting. Almost all of them opposed the project. I wish I could link to the article because some of the comments are actually quite funny.

Source : "An Earful For Tsimiklis on Wellington Project" (November 20th, 2013) - AllNovaScotia.com
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 3:44 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
Apparently 125 people showed up to the public information meeting. Almost all of them opposed the project.
This amount of opposition toward 13 storeys?... Seriously?

I hope the buildings get approved anyway.
Do anti-development Haligonians residing on the peninsula not realise they're on a peninsula?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 4:33 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
The funny thing (to me) is that if you look in the area - there is a lot of high density around there. Not all of it is 13 stories; but along Wellington there are quite a few mid (maybe even high rise) towers. I was actually surprised that this area wasn't included in the Regional Centre plan because it could easily go up in height (excluding the heritage streetscape area of course).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 4:36 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
This amount of opposition toward 13 storeys?... Seriously?

I hope the buildings get approved anyway.
Do anti-development Haligonians residing on the peninsula not realise they're on a peninsula?
The South End Detail Area Plan and the Peninsula South MPS and LUBs provide guidance for where height and density should be considered. That was/is going to be expanded under teh Centre Plan and Corridor Study. That does not mean height is going to be allowed every where, all the time.

There will be residential R1/R2 neighbourhoods that will continue to function, and not be rezoned for height... the peninsula is big and HRM can hit all its growth targets easily without starting to put 12 story towers on Oakland or Cedar or Cork or Leeds. The whole peninsula is not now, will not be zoned highrise. If anything the Centre Plan will provide clarity - say "height here" and "low rise" here, and make it much harder to put towers in low rise residential zones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 4:44 PM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,416
Absurd to balk at this height and density. It would be totally innocuous on that site. I'm interested to hear the comments from the neighbours, but it seems like ignorant overreaction...disappointing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 5:04 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post

There will be residential R1/R2 neighbourhoods that will continue to function, and not be rezoned for height... the peninsula is big and HRM can hit all its growth targets easily without starting to put 12 story towers on Oakland or Cedar or Cork or Leeds. The whole peninsula is not now, will not be zoned highrise.
I agree with this. I've often argued against the idea that it's "natural" for our older housing stick in R1/R2 neighbourhoods to necessarily be turned over into mid-rise--once a city reaches a certain point in its built form, there seems to be a certain permanence to the housing stock. Hence why Toronto's defining Victorians or Brooklyn's traditional brownstones aren't disappearing any time soon.

At the same time, it's frustrating to see the overreactions of certain NIMBYs who irrationally think that moderately tall buildings will deal a death blow to their neighbourhoods--if properly designed, even very tall buildings can fit quite seamlessly into existing communities, but there's still an entrenched resistance that's not really very logical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 5:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
Is there any other source to the information that can be linked directly?

There are a lot of assumptions being made here and it would perhaps serve the discussion well if there were some actual numbers/comments (i.e. percentage of opposition and reasons) by which to draw conclusions. I don't think we make ourselves look good by always assuming ignorant NIMBYism without checking the facts first.

Just my 2¢, which I'm sure some of you are tiring of, but there it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 5:41 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
the peninsula is big and HRM can hit all its growth targets easily without starting to put 12 story towers on Oakland or Cedar or Cork or Leeds. The whole peninsula is not now, will not be zoned highrise.
Even though I used to suck at getting your name right, I certainly have paid attention to your posts. I respect your opinions and like a lot of your ideas. I admire your commitment to the city.

You know much more about these city planning cases than I do, so I am prefacing this as more of a request to correct what I'm not understanding about the process you're using as evidence.
I'm not sure how realistic HRM's targets are, nor am I certain that HRM's plans are broadly considering the unavoidable financial impact of sprawled infrastructure and public services debt if we do not achieve an adequate level of density throughout the city within a given frame of time. Yes, we assign numbers to the titles of these plans and give them legality for a duration -- but that says nothing about the density numbers we need to be hitting because of projected debt we will incur if we do not.

Hasn't the approach to density during the development of this Central Plan been lite on numbers and, instead, more reliant on residential consensus building?

Are we challenging ourselves or are we doing something politically safe? Do you have confidence in HRM's density targets?

I'm still trying to get over my bewilderment from so many people opposing 13 storeys...

It's not as though this proposal was a surprise replica of Purdy's Wharf.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 6:20 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
I'm still trying to get over my bewilderment from so many people opposing 13 storeys...
Check out these guys in Toronto. They succeeded in forcing the city to draft a whole new planning regime for their one downtown street, so intense was their opposition to a six storey condo that will replace a parking lot. They believe their trendy strip of restaurants and bars is somehow super special and should be protected from the encroachment of evil condo dwellers, or anything over four storeys. They even held this supremely annoying sit-in.

The real annoyance is that these are mostly very well-to-do youngish professionals with the financial resources to buy detached houses downtown, who themselves led a wave of gentrification in recent years, completely changing the face of the neighbourhood, which was for decades a working-class immigrant area. Now they're upset that the newly desirable neighbourhood is developing further.

So if downtown dwellers in Toronto genuinely believe a six storey building will destroy their community--enough that they've succeeded in forcing the city to kowtow to them--I'm not too surprised that Haligonians are frothing at the mouth over 13 storeys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 6:32 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Check out these guys in Toronto. They succeeded in forcing the city to draft a whole new planning regime for their one downtown street, so intense was their opposition to a six storey condo that will replace a parking lot. They believe their trendy strip of restaurants and bars is somehow super special and should be protected from the encroachment of evil condo dwellers, or anything over four storeys. They even held this supremely annoying sit-in.

The real annoyance is that these are mostly very well-to-do youngish professionals with the financial resources to buy detached houses downtown, who themselves led a wave of gentrification in recent years, completely changing the face of the neighbourhood, which was for decades a working-class immigrant area. Now they're upset that the newly desirable neighbourhood is developing further.

So if downtown dwellers in Toronto genuinely believe a six storey building will destroy their community--enough that they've succeeded in forcing the city to kowtow to them--I'm not too surprised that Haligonians are frothing at the mouth over 13 storeys.
You just blew my mind.

Because no one I know in the GTA blinks at anything below 30 storeys.

Even the literature I scan about new developments, news and articles that usually give at least some scope to what the opposition is, would still lead me to the impression that height is much more accepted in downtown Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 6:35 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,237
I think the numbers and percentages are pretty much irrelevant. This is just a terrible framework for making planning decisions.

There should be public consultation for high-level planning or to refine proposals, but it makes no sense to base the decision of whether or not to build on feedback from a room full of people who all have giant conflicts of interest.

Hopefully the Centre Plan will fix this.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 6:49 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
You just blew my mind.

Because no one I know in the GTA blinks at anything below 30 storeys.

Even the literature I scan about new developments, news and articles that usually give at least some scope to what the opposition is, would still lead me to the impression that height is much more accepted in downtown Toronto.
Oh yeah, NIMBYism is rampant in Toronto. In addition to that one, examples one two and three.

It's even inspired a parody Twitter account.

That's why when people talk about how anti-development Halifax is, I just think: "Guys, this happens everywhere."

EDIT: Another, not quite downtown but right in the old city, right on the subway line, and only 11 storeys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 6:58 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
There will be residential R1/R2 neighbourhoods that will continue to function, and not be rezoned for height... the peninsula is big and HRM can hit all its growth targets easily without starting to put 12 story towers on Oakland or Cedar or Cork or Leeds. The whole peninsula is not now, will not be zoned highrise. If anything the Centre Plan will provide clarity - say "height here" and "low rise" here, and make it much harder to put towers in low rise residential zones.
While I don't always agree with your opinions, I do in part on this. My problem with your comment is that this proposal is for a mid rise building in a context where mid-rise has already occurred. There are two mid rise buildings there, now...which establish a context. So one could make the reasonable argument that Tower Road acts as an edge to this neighbourhood and this proposal is for mid rise buildings along the far edge in a location where midrise had already occurred and this would be a reasonable one.

Where I do agree with you, is the more obvious low rise, low density areas which are the typical R1/R2. The problem for this area is that it's not all R1/R2. It's R-3 or R-2A, which promotes the sort of low rise 4 storey apartment buildings or high rise apartment buildings (like what is on South Street or South Park). Yes, R-2A does allow low density uses (like R1/R2) - but there is no actually zoned R2/R1 parcels in this area. I would make the logical arguement that given the zoning on the ground, this area was encouraged to have a higher density than R1/R2 and so any consideration to those characteristics is really not viable.

But I do agree that most R1/R2 should be left alone, although I think there should be some exceptions. For example the low density area behind Agricola between Agricola and Robie (by the car dealership). I believe that if someone could buy up all that land, mid rise apartments to support the commercial street envisioned in the Centre Plan would be appropriate. Particularly if the car dealership redevelops into a mixed use development of some form.

But in most cases - I do agree, R1/R2 sites should be encouraged to mainly stay as it. At most, any redevelopment that should be encouraged in these areas might be some 3 or 4 storey walk up apartments to a maximum of say 8-10 units. Something similar to these but not necessarily this design (something better - haha).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 7:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think the numbers and percentages are pretty much irrelevant. This is just a terrible framework for making planning decisions.

There should be public consultation for high-level planning or to refine proposals, but it makes no sense to base the decision of whether or not to build on feedback from a room full of people who all have giant conflicts of interest.

Hopefully the Centre Plan will fix this.
So has this development actually been cancelled or delayed based on the alleged opposition to it? Or are we basing our disgust on what we think might happen for reasons that we imagine are the same as 'every' NIMBY situation. In this case I do not think that the facts and figures are irrelevant, unless they have very little impact on the progress of this project. If they do have an impact then they are very relevant until a different process is in place. (in my opinion)

I agree with your second statement about public consultation.

Looking at the neighborhood from the outside, I can't imagine why they would oppose this development as it is very much in keeping with what is already there. This is why to me it would be fair and interesting to hear what the actual opposition is to it before we pass judgement on the residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2013, 2:31 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
The South End Detail Area Plan and the Peninsula South MPS and LUBs provide guidance for where height and density should be considered. That was/is going to be expanded under teh Centre Plan and Corridor Study. That does not mean height is going to be allowed every where, all the time.

There will be residential R1/R2 neighbourhoods that will continue to function, and not be rezoned for height... the peninsula is big and HRM can hit all its growth targets easily without starting to put 12 story towers on Oakland or Cedar or Cork or Leeds. The whole peninsula is not now, will not be zoned highrise. If anything the Centre Plan will provide clarity - say "height here" and "low rise" here, and make it much harder to put towers in low rise residential zones.
This isn't a low rise residential zone. It's standing beside two high rise towers, FFS.

I'm sick tired of the predicatable, reactionary, conservative, curmudgeons that come out to EVERY meeting and oppose it.

Let me guess? The people opposed it due to wind, shadow, traffic concerns.

But the reality is often something different-- it's just conservative locals who hate the possibility of new-- probably young-- people coming to the community.

That kind of sentiment should not be "respected", but renounced.
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 10:57 PM.

     

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