[Halifax] The Maple | 72 m | 21 fl | Completed

[fenwick16]

There seems to be one fairly significant variance request by Southwest Properties. Based on the HRM_by_Design rules - https://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistri...signManual.pdf the maximum width above 33.5 meters for the central blocks precinct is 38 meters but it appears as though they have designed it to be about 52 meters wide (based on the sketches in the planning document).

This can be seen in the following images:

(source: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/...1108drc000.PDF )




Possibly there will be objections to this variance request since the purpose of this requirement is to avoid excessively wide buildings. Also the mechanical floor exceeds 66 meters (the roof appears to be about 70 meters including the mechanical/elevator room); this is permitted but only if it accounts for less than 30% of the roof area, however they seem to have almost the entire roof area as the mechanical/elevator room.

I like the proposal as it is and hope that it will be accepted as it is, however, there might be concerns that it will lead to a disregard for some of the good aspects of HRM_by_Design. One good aspect of HRM_by_Design is the push for slenderer towers; it is unfortunate that the concept of having slenderer towers wasn't combined with more height allowance to encourage it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

So how long before the usual rhetoric starts from the usual suspects?

1) Too tall.
2) Shadows and wind will sweep people in the harbour.
3) There are old buildings in proximity / viewplanes.
4) The children.

We need the apartments downtown, so it will be a tough battle for the anti-development folks.

[Keith P.]

HRMbD's attempts to micromanage the design of buildings that are badly needed downtown will be its downfall.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

The too tall argument may come out, but it won't mean much. The height is permitted as of right. It looks like the roof is at the height limit, and the only part above the height limit is the arches at the north end, which would appear to be allowed.

This will be an interesting test for HRMbyDesign due to the building be too wide as Fenwick points out.

Keith you're very down on a planning document that has already seen several major project approved very quickly for downtown: TD Centre; Citadel redevelopment; Nova Centre; as well as smaller projects like Barrington E-space and the CD Plus replacement. It's early but HRMbyDesign seems to be doing a good job of removing the politics from routine development proposals and expediting development approval.

[someone123]

I think it makes the most sense to look at the big picture and to compare HbD to the way the old system worked in practice rather than an ideal that never existed. Many good projects that would otherwise have been held up for years have been approved quickly under the new planning rules. We will have to wait and see how the variance for the upper floors goes.

Originally Posted by gm_scott

Looks great. But what is with the North-South pedestrian link? I'm wondering if its supposed to line up with Bedford Row? I'm just wondering if its necessary, or they decided to put it in because they didn't need a bigger building footprint.

I didn't have time to read the whole report but one section I saw mentioned that there is a maximum practical depth for apartment units. In some big apartments you see "U" or "W" shaped buildings with courtyards. My guess is that this site isn't deep enough to accommodate that sort of design, so they went with a single hallway and units on each side and they didn't need the extra depth. They also need some sort of setback from the lot to the east if they want units on that side.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't have time to read the whole report but one section I saw mentioned that there is a maximum practical depth for apartment units. In some big apartments you see "U" or "W" shaped buildings with courtyards. My guess is that this site isn't deep enough to accommodate that sort of design, so they went with a single hallway and units on each side and they didn't need the extra depth. They also need some sort of setback from the lot to the east if they want units on that side.

On the east side they have labelled a "new property line" so maybe they own the east side lot or plan to buy a portion of it.

They have an interesting archway feature on the north side of the roof, which I hope is kept in the final design (it looks quite impressive). They have designed the mechanical room to cover the entire roof, whereas a maximum of 30% is permitted with the remainder required to be landscaped (sections 8.6-8.12 of the Land Use By-Law - https://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistri...signManual.pdf ). I wonder if they are hoping to avoid the landscaped flat roof by added architectural details to a full roof size mechanical room above the 66 meter height limit. I hope the Design Review Committee will allow it; it will show how flexible the committee is to variances.

Here are some images showing the mechanical room, which is above 66 meters.

(source: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/...1108drc000.PDF)

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

They have an interesting archway feature on the north side of the roof, which I hope is kept in the final design (it looks quite impressive).

I really enjoy it as well. Fingers crossed!

[pchipman]

It could use some colour.

[ScovaNotian]

It looks a little institutional, doesn't it? It could pass as a hospital or a university building.

[scooby074]

The bottom looks like an old school parking garage

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by ScovaNotian

It looks a little institutional, doesn't it? It could pass as a hospital or a university building.

I was thinking university building or some sort of finance company.

Either way, I like it. Gives a CBD feel and looks european... lets build it!!!

[halifaxboyns]

The height issue will depend on if the definition and method for calculating height has some exclusions. In most Bylaws things like elevator penthouses and decorative elements are excluded, I know that's the case in the Calgary LUB because I was at an open house on the weekend and that question came up. So if the space above 66m is not useable space but mechanical, then it might be okay. If it's not, there may be provisions to request a variance to height but considering the bonusing maps, it might be treated like the height modifiers we have here in Calgary: Absolute and not applicable for a variance.

[someone123]

If it's not specifically addressed in the report then I'd lead toward thinking that they are planning to follow HRM by Design rules. I can't imagine it's worth it to try to get a height variance for a couple of meters.

[someone123]

Improved rendering:

[halifaxboyns]

Looking better and better...

[worldlyhaligonian]

What a beautiful building. One of the better podiums and roof features I think we've seen.

[kwajo]

A thousand times better than the empty lot on the corner there now, and it will really make the nearby parts of Barrington a lot more vibrant to have so many actual residents in the vicinity.

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by someone123

Improved rendering:

I can't wait to see this built!!!

[RyeJay]

Certainly attractive

If this new proposal proceeds just as quickly as the Citadel Hotel Redevelopment, I may just begin admiring HRM_by_Design slightly

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Has this been officially submitted?

Good building. Lots of good things, but I really like the balconies on the podium: great to get as much activity as possible in the first couple floors above street level.