HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Skye Halifax I in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #801  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2013, 12:13 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think that's actually a pretty good story. Proposing something under HbD is the most sensible option at this point and it is the most realistic path to actually getting something built.
Except... given the track record, I'll be pleasantly surprised if the next measurable progress here, under United Gulf, is "sensible" or "realistic." Here's hoping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #802  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2013, 6:36 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
"WE ARE THINKING REALLY REALLY HARD, GUYS. WE'LL HAVE AN IDEA IN 24-36 MONTHS. DEVELOPMENT IS A TOUGH BIZ, OKAY GUYS? YOU DON'T KNOW."
Is this 'announcement of announcement' maybe to get HRM off United Gulf's back?...assuming the city is making any effort whatsoever to check in on these "developers."

They shouldn't need so much brainstorming time; they already know what approval looks like. Instead of re-inventing a proposal according to HRMbyDesign, they should just take a step back and go with what they were permitted to do a long ass time ago.

The Twisted Sisters -- but majorly cheapened and simplified.

I wonder if their next announcement, if it's not to announce another future announcement, will be the sale of the site and the company's bankruptcy. At least that would be movement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #803  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2014, 7:37 PM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
So its been 9 months and still nothing on this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #804  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2014, 11:27 PM
Haligonian88's Avatar
Haligonian88 Haligonian88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanaxanax View Post
So its been 9 months and still nothing on this.
I read something about a month ago that seemed to indicate that plans were in the works to have something by this fall to propose for the site. I hate to start rumors, but it gave me hope that something might be built, someday. Hopefully someone else has heard more than I. I'll see if I can find what I read tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #805  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2014, 7:04 PM
TheLittleGuy TheLittleGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.
I remember this excitement around this project when it was first discussed, we need buildings starting at the 30 stories and up. The idea of 48 should have been embraced with little debate because it would have sent the message that as a province and a city we are open for business. We are Atlantic Canada's capital and should embrace that fact, not shun it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #806  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2014, 11:09 PM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
And Bam! we are now on 12 months since they said they would submit something new to the city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #807  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2014, 2:09 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy View Post
I remember this excitement around this project when it was first discussed, we need buildings starting at the 30 stories and up. The idea of 48 should have been embraced with little debate because it would have sent the message that as a province and a city we are open for business. We are Atlantic Canada's capital and should embrace that fact, not shun it.
This has been a parking lot for a decade and we're still waiting for a serious proposal. No one was going to support Skye, after just passing HRMxD, which, in my view, has been a serious boon to downtown development and activities. They had approval to build Twister Sister proposal, but let it expire. Why?

If the developers wanted to show they were serious, they would have a new proposal already, that conformed to HRMxD. Just like the other major developers building in the area-- Southwest at the Maple and Starfish with the Roy.

Last edited by counterfactual; Oct 31, 2014 at 6:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #808  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2014, 4:01 AM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Neither of those actually conformed... the Maple, because of that fin thing (as far as I know an exception was made to one of the width/height rules) and the Roy was grandfathered in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #809  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2014, 11:27 AM
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 Hali87 View Post
Neither of those actually conformed... the Maple, because of that fin thing (as far as I know an exception was made to one of the width/height rules) and the Roy was grandfathered in.
Maple was considered a major variance but was within the bylaw - the design review committee has the power to allow a major variance if the variance meets the intent of the by-law. The selling point was the Maple has the fin and is not a "wedding cake" but is actually 97% the allowable volume, the right height, and is creating/reenforcing the mid-block crossing between it and the Ralston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #810  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2014, 3:17 PM
TheLittleGuy TheLittleGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 28
I would love to see dozen of these in downtown Dartmouth and all over Halifax. Looks great!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #811  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2014, 5:07 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Neither of those actually conformed... the Maple, because of that fin thing (as far as I know an exception was made to one of the width/height rules) and the Roy was grandfathered in.
The Maple did, as per Waye's post, and the Roy was still entirely legal and appropriate -- being grandfathered.

Skye was an attempt to gut the new HRMxD law. Neither Roy nor the Maple, presented any similar such challenge to the (then) relatively new development framework.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #812  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2014, 1:42 PM
FuzzyWuz FuzzyWuz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Isn't it nice that this thread has come back from the dead in time for Hallowe'en?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #813  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2014, 5:53 AM
Aya_Akai's Avatar
Aya_Akai Aya_Akai is offline
Dartmouth Girl
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz View Post
Isn't it nice that this thread has come back from the dead in time for Hallowe'en?
2spooky4me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #814  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 8:11 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 487
Halifax council will discuss on Tuesday whether to scrap the development agreement signed nine years ago with Navid Saberi for the former TexPark site.

As debated in these pages before, Saberi's United Gulf has been sitting on this site since he paid $5 million for it in 2004, beating out four other developers. Despite winning approval for the original "Twister Sisters" twin tower development that topped out at 27 stories, development never proceeded. He later returned with a proposal for the 48-storey Skye towers, which was rejected by regional council.

Critics have long demanded that the city exercise its rights to rescind the agreement though I believe there was also fear that the language of the deal was so porous that an effort to scrap it might face a legal challenge.

A staff report says it's not acceptable to give non-conforming developments indefinite approval rights. Under current planning rules, only about 20 floors would be allowed.

Here's the report.

I think there are few who would argue that United Gulf has not had more than enough time do something positive with this gaping wound in the heart of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #815  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 8:36 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,021
I have no expectation United Gulf will ever build here. The most we could expect from them is a development agreement and a sale of the site once the value is higher (the market value of the empty lot alone has probably improved quite a bit since they bought it).

Their last attempt at a building was 910 Bedford Highway, which was a nice looking building, but because they started work without all their permits, this is now the second makeshift quarry in the area. Things have been dead on this site for over a year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #816  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 9:13 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
Halifax council will discuss on Tuesday whether to scrap the development agreement signed nine years ago with Navid Saberi for the former TexPark site.

As debated in these pages before, Saberi's United Gulf has been sitting on this site since he paid $5 million for it in 2004, beating out four other developers. Despite winning approval for the original "Twister Sisters" twin tower development that topped out at 27 stories, development never proceeded. He later returned with a proposal for the 48-storey Skye towers, which was rejected by regional council.

Critics have long demanded that the city exercise its rights to rescind the agreement though I believe there was also fear that the language of the deal was so porous that an effort to scrap it might face a legal challenge.

A staff report says it's not acceptable to give non-conforming developments indefinite approval rights. Under current planning rules, only about 20 floors would be allowed.

Here's the report

I think there are few who would argue that United Gulf has not had more than enough time do something positive with this gaping wound in the heart of the city.
So, wait, who owns the property? The City or UG? And are Council just doing to kill the DA? They're not going to re-take the land? Or they had never sold it, just signed a DA?

The City, as they have stupidly done in so many instances, when awarding UG, ignored superior proposals from developers with better reputations and track records and instead went with U.G. because they offered a little more money for the site (the City made the same idiotic mistake with the Bloomfield site).

If they had awarded to Southwest (who had bid), there'd likely already be a tower here. Idiocy in the City planning department.

Just take it back from these clown, give UG their 5m back; you'll get more from re-selling it today.

Last edited by counterfactual; Sep 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #817  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 11:45 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
I have no expectation United Gulf will ever build here. The most we could expect from them is a development agreement and a sale of the site once the value is higher (the market value of the empty lot alone has probably improved quite a bit since they bought it).

Their last attempt at a building was 910 Bedford Highway, which was a nice looking building, but because they started work without all their permits, this is now the second makeshift quarry in the area. Things have been dead on this site for over a year.
Well, there is "The Boss" development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #818  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2016, 12:49 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
So, wait, who owns the property? The City or UG? And are Council just doing to kill the DA? They're not going to re-take the land? Or they had never sold it, just signed a DA?

The City, as they have stupidly done in so many instances, when awarding UG, ignored superior proposals from developers with better reputations and track records and instead went with U.G. because they offered a little more money for the site (the City made the same idiotic mistake with the Bloomfield site).

If they had awarded to Southwest (who had bid), there'd likely already be a tower here. Idiocy in the City planning department.

Just take it back from these clown, give UG their 5m back; you'll get more from re-selling it today.
Eminent Domain this sucker!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #819  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 9:25 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 487
Halifax regional council has voted 10-6 to discharge Navid Saberi's development agreement for the former TexPark site. That means if Saberi wants to proceed with development of the site he'll need to come back with a new development proposal. Under the HRM by Design rules now in effect on the site, he'd be restricted to 21 storeys. That would put it at roughly the same height as the adjacent Roy and Maple projects.

Saberi had asked for another three-year extension to develop the site. In a letter to council he claimed he's been working with engineers to make the original "Twister Sisters" design more cost-effective. He won't get that chance.

Councillor Waye Mason spoke for the majority of councillors -- and I expect most of us here -- in saying 12 years is long enough.

But councillors McCluskey, Dalrymple, Whitman, Hendsbee, Walker and Adams voted to give the developer more time. McCluskey bemoaned the fact that "the lot will sit empty". Which was kind of the point: with an extension it was almost guaranteed to sit empty another three years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #820  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 1:10 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
Halifax regional council has voted 10-6 to discharge Navid Saberi's development agreement for the former TexPark site. That means if Saberi wants to proceed with development of the site he'll need to come back with a new development proposal. Under the HRM by Design rules now in effect on the site, he'd be restricted to 21 storeys. That would put it at roughly the same height as the adjacent Roy and Maple projects.

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

Quote:
Councillor Waye Mason spoke for the majority of councillors -- and I expect most of us here -- in saying 12 years is long enough.
Mason never speaks for me.
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 4:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.