[Halifax] The Craigmore | 46 m | 16 fl | Complete

[macgregor]

I don't like this one. I favour developments that are on main intersections, so the residents can access transit. This might be on a major road, but it is up a quiet street and is a moderate walk to a bus route that only goes one way.

I would prefer something right at the rotary.

This is only going to introduce more commuters and traffic.

[worldlyhaligonian]

So you guys who aren't in favour of this would prefer it to remain a parking lot?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

This lot is small (being built on the existing buildings parking lot)and is right on the front door steps of many of the houses that would be nessled in the woods. The existing building is going to remain from what i've been told.

Renderings or not, i think its a poor choice, but as expressed it's an AOR and well everyone including myself has to live with it.

Have you seen the Welsford before... there are literally houses on all sides of it.

Also, we might never get a 16 story building in the west end... after the Bayer's road proposal got reduced I'm pretty happy to get what we can.

[halifaxboyns]

The problems with AOR is the fact that once you meet the rules; a permit gets issued. It's the same way in the Alberta system. AOR is called permitted use - you meet the rules, the Alberta Municipal Government Act actually says that Development officer actually MUST issue a permit.

Typically in Alberta, most cities/towns make most Multi-residential development discretionary. This means that regardless if you meet the rules, the Development Authority can refuse the application on issues of context and planning issues (the design might be out of context or be well beyond the rules of the district).

The Alberta system has its advantages in that situations like this would probably end up in a discretionary process - unfortunately, it also allows too many hands to get into the pot. Calgary's process for infill development in the inner city actually has single detached dwellings as discretionary uses, because the quality of inner city residential (from Council's perspective) has to be the 'a game' of quality. But it leads to many appeals on simple things as houses because people don't want bigger homes than their's. It can be funny but really annoying!

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Have you seen the Welsford before... there are literally houses on all sides of it.

Also, we might never get a 16 story building in the west end... after the Bayer's road proposal got reduced I'm pretty happy to get what we can.

Drive by it every day.

[macgregor]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

So you guys who aren't in favour of this would prefer it to remain a parking lot?

Similar to the Welsford, I think that this has potential to integrate well with the neighbourhood around it.

Realistically, if this site has permission to build a high structure it should be taken advantage of, but otherwise I think there are better locations a large development like this. Not because it would harm the neighbourhood that it is in, but because this neighbourhood doesn't offer much for transit or shopping.

Ideally, of course the parking lot should be replaced. I would prefer detached or semi detached homes. It would be great if the "air rights" could be transferred to another spot. I don't even mean this needs to be downtown, but putting this right on the corner of Craigmore/Dutch Village would be a bit better. Closer to the rotary would be better still.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by macgregor

Similar to the Welsford, I think that this has potential to integrate well with the neighbourhood around it.

Realistically, if this site has permission to build a high structure it should be taken advantage of, but otherwise I think there are better locations a large development like this. Not because it would harm the neighbourhood that it is in, but because this neighbourhood doesn't offer much for transit or shopping.

Ideally, of course the parking lot should be replaced. I would prefer detached or semi detached homes. It would be great if the "air rights" could be transferred to another spot. I don't even mean this needs to be downtown, but putting this right on the corner of Craigmore/Dutch Village would be a bit better. Closer to the rotary would be better still.

Well said.

I would think that the parking lot is somewhat needed as the building doesn't have any parking and well the streets don't offer any as they are narrow and don't even have sidewalks. That could hurt the neighbourhood.

But in the end something was approved, and therefore will happen, which i can live with.

[someone123]

It would be great if they could do a land swap or something but realistically any change would be opposed and would take years to resolve, so there's a huge incentive for developers to maximize any opportunity like this.

[macgregor]

Originally Posted by sdm

Well said.

I would think that the parking lot is somewhat needed as the building doesn't have any parking and well the streets don't offer any as they are narrow and don't even have sidewalks. That could hurt the neighbourhood.

But in the end something was approved, and therefore will happen, which i can live with.

If the office building had been built across the street they could have shared with the parking garage that is already there. It would have been a good office cluster. Gotta love hindsight.

I guess they'll have to park there anyways if the new building is built.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Is there not going to be underground parking under this tower?

Where are the renderings... weren't they supposed to come out this week?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Is there not going to be underground parking under this tower?

Where are the renderings... weren't they supposed to come out this week?

probably will for the condo, but its the existing building that i would think would have limited to none existant parking.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

probably will for the condo, but its the existing building that i would think would have limited to none existant parking.

Wouldn't the developer just put more spaces than required to turn the parking into a cash cow? If anything this development is likely to increase the amount of spots available.

Its not an excuse to be against developments that replace one surface lot with multiple levels underground... this is why number of high rise developments will actually IMPROVE the parking situation downtown.

I know that park vic has 2 levels of parking and doesn't even use one whole level... and rents spots to people who work downtown and still has plenty of spots.

The thing i really like about the height is that people who work in those office buildings (former CGI, manulife, and the smaller one) now have a place where they can live and walk to work.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Wouldn't the developer just put more spaces than required to turn the parking into a cash cow? If anything this development is likely to increase the amount of spots available.

Its not an excuse to be against developments that replace one surface lot with multiple levels underground... this is why number of high rise developments will actually IMPROVE the parking situation downtown.

I know that park vic has 2 levels of parking and doesn't even use one whole level... and rents spots to people who work downtown and still has plenty of spots.

The thing i really like about the height is that people who work in those office buildings (former CGI, manulife, and the smaller one) now have a place where they can live and walk to work.

the residtual site if the existing building is kept would be roughly under half a acre at best. To go underground past two levels in Halifax the costs go through the roof and makes a development less economically feasible.

The use of the existing building now will be a location for the drugs and addiction clinic / housing for the IWK.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Lol, parking might not be an issue then...

The news had the renderings?? I wonder if they are on the internet anywhere... I've been looking

[halifaxboyns]

Transfering 'air rights' is typically done in a bonusing system and believe me; it's never easy to figure out.

A system like that typically gets so complicated because certain density and floor area ratios get transfered a lot - you never know where the original potential originated from.

[alps]

Originally Posted by macgregor

I don't like this one. I favour developments that are on main intersections, so the residents can access transit. This might be on a major road, but it is up a quiet street and is a moderate walk to a bus route that only goes one way.

I would prefer something right at the rotary.

This is only going to introduce more commuters and traffic.

It's only 50 metres to the 6 and the 14, and there are stops for both directions. I never believe "traffic" is a good reason to reject development in the core, because if residents aren't living there they'll be living somewhere -- and if it's the suburbs instead you can bet that a greater percentage will be driving.

Originally Posted by macgregor

If the office building had been built across the street they could have shared with the parking garage that is already there. It would have been a good office cluster. Gotta love hindsight.

I guess they'll have to park there anyways if the new building is built.

I think the office building predates the parking garage. Pretty sure it's the former Halifax county building (predating the 1960s at least) and the parking garage would've been built around the same time as the Maritime Life complex which was developed from the mid 70s-late 80s...can anyone confirm?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by alps

It's only 50 metres to the 6 and the 14, and there are stops for both directions. I never believe "traffic" is a good reason to reject development in the core, because if residents aren't living there they'll be living somewhere -- and if it's the suburbs instead you can bet that a greater percentage will be driving.



I think the office building predates the parking garage. Pretty sure it's the former Halifax county building (predating the 1960s at least) and the parking garage would've been built around the same time as the Maritime Life complex which was developed from the mid 70s-late 80s...can anyone confirm?

Correct, its the old halifaxy county building and the parking structure was built for the maritime life complex.

Reason the building (county building) sold was the oringial tenant moved because of parking issues, and well they couldn't get more parking from the martime life parking structure because it was full.

[macgregor]

Originally Posted by alps

I never believe "traffic" is a good reason to reject development in the core, because if residents aren't living there they'll be living somewhere -- and if it's the suburbs instead you can bet that a greater percentage will be driving.

I agree that it's definitely better than the suburbs, but I personally don't feel this is a core area. It will add traffic to the normal choke points (Rotary, Bayers, Mumford), which wouldn't be added if this had been built closer to downtown.

Originally Posted by alps

I think the office building predates the parking garage. Pretty sure it's the former Halifax county building (predating the 1960s at least) and the parking garage would've been built around the same time as the Maritime Life complex which was developed from the mid 70s-late 80s...can anyone confirm?

Thanks to you and sdm for the historic background info. If things had gone differently in the past, this area could have turned into quite a high density "node".

[worldlyhaligonian]

Renderings?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Renderings?

haven't seen any