[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

IOW, another piece of the tabletop that DT Halifax is doomed to have under HRMxD...

Except that the Roy is further up the hill and the Maple further down, so... not the same height above Sea Level, and if it were a table, it would be tilted.

I'm not convinced United Gulf could make it work at any number of storeys, so 21, 22, 23, 24... makes little difference.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Mason never speaks for me.

Do you live in his district? If you feel you're not being represented, you could always contact him with your concerns. He's quite responsive to that kind of thing.

[The Conductor]

48 floors is not enough - Ottawa/Gatineau has begun to realize that if you want to reduce urban sprawl, maximize public transit use, and reduce carbon footprints taller is better. It's sad how children pretending to be adults are still fighting and arguing over building heights...Halifax needs to unleash the business spirit that exists in Halifax to actually become a legitimate city instead of a large town. Why is it that no city in Atlantic Canada has a population of a million or more? This stuff is all connected, time for the dinosaurs to move along and allow tall buildings to be built...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by The Conductor

Why is it that no city in Atlantic Canada has a population of a million or more? This stuff is all connected, time for the dinosaurs to move along and allow tall buildings to be built...

Lots of reasons, exactly zero of which are the lack of 48-storey (or taller) buildings. As has been mentioned here before, please list all the metropolitan regions under 500,000 people in North America that have as many tall buildings as Halifax. It is a short, short list.

[someone123]

I think it's important to have, in aggregate, a decent-sized bank of potential sites that are zoned for higher density, to allow the city to grow up instead of just out. This is already the case downtown to some degree with HRM by Design; it's easy to build a 20-storey tower on this site. If the Centre Plan is well done there will be a large number of opportunity sites to keep the city going for years.

I don't know if it's true, but I have read lately that up to 40% of development has been going to the urban core. It used to be more like 15% a few years ago and in the 90's it was probably more like 2%. That indicates to me that the city actually is getting denser instead of just sprawling more as it grows. This also reduces the need for expensive infrastructure like a third harbour crossing. It would be much cheaper to add 30,000 new people to the peninsula and provide excellent transit there than it would be to add 30,000 people on the Dartmouth side and expand the road and bridge network to compensate. Given the number of empty and underused sites, 48-storey buildings aren't required to get that many new people onto the peninsula. I'd be surprised if that requires highrises at all.

As far as the tall buildings go I think it's a confusion of cause and effect to think that tall buildings make cities grow. The tall buildings follow the growth, sometimes. And lots of big, successful cities don't have tall buildings.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's important to have, in aggregate, a decent-sized bank of potential sites that are zoned for higher density, to allow the city to grow up instead of just out. This is already the case downtown to some degree with HRM by Design; it's easy to build a 20-storey tower on this site. If the Centre Plan is well done there will be a large number of opportunity sites to keep the city going for years.

I don't know if it's true, but I have read lately that up to 40% of development has been going to the urban core. It used to be more like 15% a few years ago and in the 90's it was probably more like 2%. That indicates to me that the city actually is getting denser instead of just sprawling more as it grows. This also reduces the need for expensive infrastructure like a third harbour crossing. It would be much cheaper to add 30,000 new people to the peninsula and provide excellent transit there than it would be to add 30,000 people on the Dartmouth side and expand the road and bridge network to compensate. Given the number of empty and underused sites, 48-storey buildings aren't required to get that many new people onto the peninsula. I'd be surprised if that requires highrises at all.

As far as the tall buildings go I think it's a confusion of cause and effect to think that tall buildings make cities grow. The tall buildings follow the growth, sometimes. And lots of big, successful cities don't have tall buildings.

That is very true and makes me optimistic for this city's future. It would be nicer to have many medium sized developments to fill empty lots than to have one 45+storey building. However, it would be nice to have some iconic skyscraper that makes the skyline more distinguishable. 50 stories in the future? Bring it on, and make it impressive not only in size but in design too.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's important to have, in aggregate, a decent-sized bank of potential sites that are zoned for higher density, to allow the city to grow up instead of just out. This is already the case downtown to some degree with HRM by Design; it's easy to build a 20-storey tower on this site. If the Centre Plan is well done there will be a large number of opportunity sites to keep the city going for years.

I don't know if it's true, but I have read lately that up to 40% of development has been going to the urban core. It used to be more like 15% a few years ago and in the 90's it was probably more like 2%. That indicates to me that the city actually is getting denser instead of just sprawling more as it grows. This also reduces the need for expensive infrastructure like a third harbour crossing. It would be much cheaper to add 30,000 new people to the peninsula and provide excellent transit there than it would be to add 30,000 people on the Dartmouth side and expand the road and bridge network to compensate. Given the number of empty and underused sites, 48-storey buildings aren't required to get that many new people onto the peninsula. I'd be surprised if that requires highrises at all.

As far as the tall buildings go I think it's a confusion of cause and effect to think that tall buildings make cities grow. The tall buildings follow the growth, sometimes. And lots of big, successful cities don't have tall buildings.

Very well put, as always, someone123.

I'd only quibble with one point: the big, successful cities that don't have tall buildings tend to be ones that have very high levels of dense multiple unit mid-rise residential developments -- thinking Paris as a good example.

Halifax, for various historical reasons (and zoning reflects it), even on the peninsula, is mostly single family / single unit homes, which today are very low density (maybe decades ago, these houses downtown housed huge families, but today are seniors, empty nesters, etc).

If we want a dense urban downtown / peninsula, to compensate for our large swaths of low density housing, Halifax needs some areas to be very high density-- including legitimate skyscrapers beyond 21 floors. So, you have a mix of mid-rise, low density, and intense high density -- that, to me, seems like a recipe for a successful city.

We're doing better now, but developing downtown is still very expensive, and anti-height NIMBYs still have a lot of influence (they're always in media), and HRM planning staff are also very quick to recommend rejecting tall proposals...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Very well put, as always, someone123.

I'd only quibble with one point: the big, successful cities that don't have tall buildings tend to be ones that have very high levels of dense multiple unit mid-rise residential developments -- thinking Paris as a good example.

Halifax, for various historical reasons (and zoning reflects it), even on the peninsula, is mostly single family / single unit homes, which today are very low density (maybe decades ago, these houses downtown housed huge families, but today are seniors, empty nesters, etc).

If we want a dense urban downtown / peninsula, to compensate for our large swaths of low density housing, Halifax needs some areas to be very high density-- including legitimate skyscrapers beyond 21 floors. So, you have a mix of mid-rise, low density, and intense high density -- that, to me, seems like a recipe for a successful city.

I always try to gently point this out to tall-building opponents who make the "Paris has no residential skyscrapers" argument. No, but the South End isn't exactly Montparnasse, and in any case can you imagine the outcry if Tower Road were rezoned to be a solid, unbroken wall of six-storey apartment buildings for blocks on end?

There are a lot of people who have a general antipathy to tall buildings, and I have been hearing the Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam-are-low-rise argument a fair bit. Do people actually think historic Halifax is built to a European density? Only a small part of the core was ever like that, which has now been subsumed by the commercial core. The rest is medium to low-ish density.

I suspect that people don't actually think that, but they just aren't thinking through their own argument. I've tried to make the point that if we want to maintain historic heritage buildings AND accommodate new people, we need to put more significant density on the sites that aren't already occupied by valuable historic buildings. Sometimes the point gets through, sometimes not.

[teddifax]

Maybe our best hope for a really tall building(s) downtown will be on the reclaimed Cogswell lands, we can only wait and see what happens there.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's important to have, in aggregate, a decent-sized bank of potential sites that are zoned for higher density, to allow the city to grow up instead of just out. This is already the case downtown to some degree with HRM by Design; it's easy to build a 20-storey tower on this site. If the Centre Plan is well done there will be a large number of opportunity sites to keep the city going for years.

Centre Plan is hoping to do exactly that. The goal is to make room for 33,000 new people in the Regional Centre over the 15 year life of the plan (Regional Centre has just over 90,000 now).

Some of this will be through infill of existing neighbourhoods, some will be through mid-rise on secondary corridors, and some will be through tall buildings in the downtowns and on primary corridors.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I always try to gently point this out to tall-building opponents who make the "Paris has no residential skyscrapers" argument. No, but the South End isn't exactly Montparnasse, and in any case can you imagine the outcry if Tower Road were rezoned to be a solid, unbroken wall of six-storey apartment buildings for blocks on end?

There are a lot of people who have a general antipathy to tall buildings, and I have been hearing the Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam-are-low-rise argument a fair bit. Do people actually think historic Halifax is built to a European density? Only a small part of the core was ever like that, which has now been subsumed by the commercial core. The rest is medium to low-ish density.

I suspect that people don't actually think that, but they just aren't thinking through their own argument. I've tried to make the point that if we want to maintain historic heritage buildings AND accommodate new people, we need to put more significant density on the sites that aren't already occupied by valuable historic buildings. Sometimes the point gets through, sometimes not.

What many people forget is that Paris has La Défence that acts as the corporate center of the city. It's not residential, but a skyscraper is a skyscraper. So using Paris as an example of how we don't need skyscrapers just tells me that a few NIMBYs have never actually been to Paris themselves.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I always try to gently point this out to tall-building opponents who make the "Paris has no residential skyscrapers" argument. No, but the South End isn't exactly Montparnasse, and in any case can you imagine the outcry if Tower Road were rezoned to be a solid, unbroken wall of six-storey apartment buildings for blocks on end?

There are a lot of people who have a general antipathy to tall buildings, and I have been hearing the Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam-are-low-rise argument a fair bit. Do people actually think historic Halifax is built to a European density? Only a small part of the core was ever like that, which has now been subsumed by the commercial core. The rest is medium to low-ish density.

I suspect that people don't actually think that, but they just aren't thinking through their own argument. I've tried to make the point that if we want to maintain historic heritage buildings AND accommodate new people, we need to put more significant density on the sites that aren't already occupied by valuable historic buildings. Sometimes the point gets through, sometimes not.

Bang on, Dry.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Halifax, for various historical reasons (and zoning reflects it), even on the peninsula, is mostly single family / single unit homes, which today are very low density (maybe decades ago, these houses downtown housed huge families, but today are seniors, empty nesters, etc.

My own quibble here: I'm not sure of the exact stats/proportion, but a significant proportion of these "single family" homes are divided into multi-unit flats. You're right in that we're not going to get "Paris densities" from detached 1-4 storey houses, but the densities are probably quite a bit higher than the look on the surface. This also doesn't always show up in official statistics (census, etc) because a lot of students (who make up a large portion of these flat-residents) aren't counted as "officially" living here. The area between Quinpool and Chebucto for example might fall into your definition of "very low density", but in practice (and even on paper) it's actually quite high density even at a national frame of reference. It's certainly possible that densities in these areas were even higher at whatever point in history, but back then this would have been seen as a bad thing in many ways (diseases spread faster, fires and other property damage were more likely, etc.)

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by The Conductor

Halifax needs to unleash the business spirit that exists in Halifax to actually become a legitimate city instead of a large town.

Some would say that Halifax feels more like a "legitimate city" than Ottawa does. I'm not sure I'd agree with that comparison (they're just different) but in practice, if not "legally", Halifax is a legitimate city. How much time have you spent here, out of curiosity?

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

What many people forget is that Paris has La Défence that acts as the corporate center of the city. It's not residential, but a skyscraper is a skyscraper. So using Paris as an example of how we don't need skyscrapers just tells me that a few NIMBYs have never actually been to Paris themselves.

Not entirely true...La Defense DOES incorporate residential buildings and a population of about 70,000 (25,000 residents and 45,000 students)

Paris itself has many residential highrises, mostly in the 13th and 15th arrondissements. The ones in the 13th are mostly residential (17 of them exceed 100 meters) while the ones in the 15th (Front De Seine) are of mixed residential and commercial use (only 1 exceeds 100 meters). In addition there are at least 3 residential towers in the 19th and 1 in the 20th that exceed 100 meters. There are also quite a number of taller buildings under the 100 meter mark which I was quite surprised to discover when I arrived there last summer.

[Jstaleness]

This one isn't DEAD yet!
While no where near as ambitious, or 48 storeys this one is coming to city council for the 3rd time.

Link to Chronicle article here:
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bu...-limit-311594/

[IanWatson]

www.skyehalifax.ca

[Northend Guy]

Well, it seems that a bit more thought and effort went into these renderings than the previous iteration of Skye. Maybe this attempt is serious?

[eastcoastal]

Hmmm... they're proposing the through-block connection as the "public benefit" and describing it as "public space where people are invited to gather on the seating 'stairs' and watch the pulse of the city."

I'm not sure that looks like a sunny and warm space in which to hang out in the manner described. It seems to me that it would be destined to be a useful cut through mid block, but not a social space.

The other "public benefit" of this proposal, according to the developer is "higher-quality finishes and public amenities, such as street trees and furniture."

Those don't seem particularly high aiming or worthy of special consideration for a prominent site downtown. If it were me evaluating, I'd say this isn't enough public benefit to be valued at $485 thousand.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

This one isn't DEAD yet!
While no where near as ambitious, or 48 storeys this one is coming to city council for the 3rd time.

Link to Chronicle article here:
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bu...-limit-311594/

Chronicle Herald article says United Gulf claims 480 underground parking spaces. The development's website says 294

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/index.php/key-features