[Dartmouth] Europa Tower | 85 m | 27 fl | Approved

[Antigonish]

Maybe they want another cheap looking concrete block tower like the previous two. Awful logic.

[halifaxboyns]

From a planning perspective - context really doesn't have a definition. In the case of Calgary, for inner city redevelopment (be it low density or high density) your neighbours have some influence.

For low density, how tall your house can be and how far forward it can be on the lot is a direct relationship with the neighbouring houses. We take the average, less 1.5m to allow some move forward and there is your front yard setback. Height - Average of the two plus 1.5m to allow some increase in height and there is your height. The maximum height can be anywhere between 8.6 and 10m, but no taller than 10m and no less than 8.6.

For multi; that's a bit different. Your height and density are more of a product of the zoning. But your setback on a major street, is still based on your neighbours (the average I mentioned above). We call these contextual rules and they work okay, but sometimes they can be a hastle. Particularly when you have the large lots with huge/deep setbacks.

In this case, I would argue that 27 floors is a reasonable context because you already had two buildings in the 15-18 range. An increase of 10 stories is not an unreasonable increase, since it's in proximity to a major transit station anyway. Granted, these arguments would be much easier to solve if HRM had some transit oriented development plans around the major bus stations.

[Antigonish]

NBNS would you have any idea why they would deem this project 'incompatible' with the neighbouring structures? Is this an arbitrary decision made by the planner due to the design or a zoning problem?

Can't wrap my head around this one

[Haligonian88]

The appeal took place today, hopefully a decision will be reached quickly.

Projects too close, review board told

January 15, 2013 - 8:46pm BY REMO ZACCAGNA BUSINESS REPORTER

A Dartmouth developer told a provincial regulator Tuesday he has concerns about a proposed $36-million residential complex on land next to his proposal.

Louis Lawen, who heads Ollive Properties Ltd., is appealing Harbour East community council’s July 5 approval of a 27-storey, mixed-use Dartmouth residential building at 7 Horizon Court. Can-Euro Investments Ltd., headed by Otto Gaspar, is proposing it.

Lawen has approval for twin seven-storey, mixed-use buildings, with 30,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, on land abutting Horizon Court.

The provincial Utility and Review Board heard arguments Tuesday.

The crux of Lawen’s appeal centres on council’s failure to “reasonably carry out” the intent of the Dartmouth municipal planning strategy.

...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...iew-board-told

[Wishblade]

Sounds to me like he just simply doesn't want the competition.

[hoser111]

Developer ‘intentionally misled’ public

Review board: Drawings featured all-glass tower that Can-Euro said was too costly to construct

A Dartmouth developer intentionally misled the public with drawings of a $36-million residential project, says the provincial regulator.

Can-Euro Investments Ltd., headed by Otto Gaspar, wants to build a 27-storey residential complex, colloquially known as Tower III near Mic Mac Mall. The company’s Horizon Court site includes the 17-storey Horizon Estates and 19-storey Summit buildings.

Last year, Ollive Properties Ltd., owned by developer Louis Lawen, lodged an appeal of Harbour East community council’s approval of the tower.

Rest of the story here:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...-misled-public

[Jstaleness]

Ouch. There was a post way back in the beginning of this thread where someone said it would look just like the other two. Looks as though they weren't far off.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Northend Guy

Oh boy...Otto Gaspar...can't say too much, but lets just say I have worked for him in the past, and there is no way in hell we will be working with him again. He's the same cat that brought the 1st two concrete monoliths.

I hope I am wrong, but I highly doubt that the finished product will bear even a remote resemblance to what is shown in Geoff's rendering.

Northend Guy (on Feb 25, 2011) called this one the right way. It looked too good to be true, especially considering the design of the first two towers.


Quote from the Chronicle Herald story - (http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...-misled-public) - “He stated he had no intention of building an all-glass building as depicted in the pictures,” the board wrote. “Furthermore, he testified that if he is required under the development agreement to build an all-glass building, he would not construct it.”

Gaspar noted that in a letter to council dated last March 26, he described the glass portion of building as being “less than 40 per cent.”


Hopefully HRM Council will give the same type of response and state that they have no intention of issuing a development agreement.

[Drybrain]

Developer: "I'm gonna build this thing." City: "Approved." Developer: "Actually, no, I'm just gonna build a whole different thing, and you won't know what it looks like 'til I'm done. Cool?"

Really, this is absurd. City documents on the project include detailed renderings and drawings specifying the materials to be used, site plans, etc. HRM should revoke approval, it at all possible. Think of the precedent. We already know the city's laws around enforcing heritage protection, etc., are pathetically insufficient, but if they can't even get a developer to commit to their own project renderings...

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Developer: "I'm gonna build this thing." City: "Approved." Developer: "Actually, no, I'm just gonna build a whole different thing, and you won't know what it looks like 'til I'm done. Cool?"

Really, this is absurd. City documents on the project include detailed renderings and drawings specifying the materials to be used, site plans, etc. HRM should revoke approval, it at all possible. Think of the precedent. We already know the city's laws around enforcing heritage protection, etc., are pathetically insufficient, but if they can't even get a developer to commit to their own project renderings...

I forgot that this was approved. Based on the CH story, it sounds like the approval might be overturned.

[hoser111]

All very disappointing and kinda greasy!

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by hoser111

All very disappointing and kinda greasy!

back-alley cheeseburger & onion ring greasy...

I saw this bumped up and got excited.. and now reading all that.. I think we could do without this, for now... unless the developer is required to, and forced to stick with what was submitted and we WOULD get that beautiful glass tower...

[Phalanx]

Yeah, that kind of bait and switch shouldn't be allowed to fly. It may have been approved, but it was clearly approved under false pretenses. Letting a developer get away with that just sets up, or continues a bad precident.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What a dumb fuck!

[resetcbu1]

Bring out the torches and pitchforks.... Good ol' fashion lynching

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by hoser111

All very disappointing and kinda greasy!

grea hee heesy (in the voice of bubbles)

[q12]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Bring out the torches and pitchforks.... Good ol' fashion lynching

[worldlyhaligonian]

He owes SSP an apology... and the development community.

This is ammo for the anti-development folks.

[IanWatson]

Sadly, I think the developer has a leg to stand on here. Reading the DA:

"3.4.2 The design, form, and exterior materials of the building shall, in the opinion of the Development Officer, generally conform to the Building Elevations included with this Agreement as Schedules F, G and H."

First of all, that's a fairly loose requirement with a lot of room for latitude. Second, Shedules F, G, H are basic 2D elevations with almost no reference to what the exterior materials are intended to be. In other words, there's absolutely nothing to hold the developer to the renderings. I won't speculate as to where the blame lies for this (intentional?) looseness. Further reminder that the number one rule of the development realm is that renderings don't mean squat.

As an aside, while I think this is unfortunate from a public trust POV, I'm not so sure it's overall a bad thing. All-glass towers certainly have a slick appeal to them, but they're notorious for having terrible heat gain problems in the summer and very poor insulation in the winter (and also often water problems).

[bluenoser]

Thanks for the insight, Ian. That's a good point about glass towers; I understand that those problems can get a lot worse with age as well. Also, using glass for 100% of cladding arguably limits the design in some ways, and this approach could seem dated in a few years. My concern here though, is that the alternative will be a lot of cheap, ugly concrete as in his other two towers but at about twice the size. And other features (in addition to the cladding) could definitely end up being cheaper and uglier as well.