HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 6:28 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,155
So the ammendments to the DD MPS are moving along. First reading's later this week and if they ammendments get approved a DA process would be started for the buildings themselves. Right now the plans are the same however if the developer has to do the DA process a general height of 15 floors is considered appropriate for DD (podium tower style).

Case 15784

The thread title should be this BTW,

[Dartmouth] Irishtown Road | ?m | 7, 14, 23 floors | Proposed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 9:06 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
So the ammendments to the DD MPS are moving along. First reading's later this week and if they ammendments get approved a DA process would be started for the buildings themselves. Right now the plans are the same however if the developer has to do the DA process a general height of 15 floors is considered appropriate for DD (podium tower style).

Case 15784

The thread title should be this BTW,

[Dartmouth] Irishtown Road | ?m | 7, 14, 23 floors | Proposed
Good find Dmajackson. Based on my understanding of the document, staff is recommending 7, 14 and 19 storeys (instead of 23 storeys) - case 15784. There were quite a few residents and other public meeting regulars who spoke out against it - they seemed to be in the majority. So it will be interesting to see if this gets approved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 10:02 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Good find Dmajackson. Based on my understanding of the document, staff is recommending 7, 14 and 19 storeys (instead of 23 storeys) - case 15784. There were quite a few residents and other public meeting regulars who spoke out against it - they seemed to be in the majority. So it will be interesting to see if this gets approved.
Well considering the existing context - this seems to me to be a reasonable solution to densify the area while not freaking too many people out. I know that King's Wharf was a challenge and the planner writing the report hit the important points about design: good design can mitigate a lot of the issues regarding shadow and wind.

I think the main goal of the images was to have a concept from which to see and then base the discussion on to progress the MPS changes. There was one guy in the minute who just didn't give the planner a break at all though - man; I can only imagine the joy of the meeting.

I lived in Halifax a long time and I have to say I don't understand the desire to keep downtown Dartmouth with a small town feel; but I think if you focus density in specific areas; then you can still get the people the MPS desires while maintaining that feel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 10:13 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,155
If there's anywhere that should be densified in the urban core its downtown Dartmouth. The ferry, King's Wharf water taxi (planned for later phases), and good buses connections make that area very desirable if some investment is made.

And well in the case of public meetings some lunatic (or pack of lunatics) always hijack the meeting and make stating another opinion impossible. In Halifax its the Heritage Trust, in Dartmouth is either them or a neighbour, and in Bedford its a hippie that thinks sprawling into Hammonds Plains is more sustainable than infilling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2010, 3:31 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,756
Glad to hear this one is moving forward. I was thinking today it had been a while since we heard anything. I like staffs recommendations, but I think they might end up being even a few floors smaller. I believe only 1 or 2 people spoke in favour at the meeting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2010, 12:53 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,665
I feel as though they should hold two meetings... one for all of the people against and one for the people that are for a development, that way it would be more fair in terms of what is expressed.

Typically anti-development folks make blanket "normative" statements... This is really unfair because although no real points are made, the anti-development folks appear to represent the majority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2010, 12:56 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I feel as though they should hold two meetings... one for all of the people against and one for the people that are for a development, that way it would be more fair in terms of what is expressed.

Typically anti-development folks make blanket "normative" statements... This is really unfair because although no real points are made, the anti-development folks appear to represent the majority.
Wordly, I have to say that your comment seems to be a blanket 'normative' statement, and a generalization. It could also be argued, incorrectly, that pro-developmnet folks do the same thing: "if it's big, it's good'.
The folks at the meeting, mostly, had legitimate concerns, which were well articulated. Few were anti-development, but they were concerned about waht is proposed for our neighborhood. Some of what is proposed for the site is not suitable for that site. The building on Ochterloney will dwarf the greenvale, and takes up the whole frontage on that street. The tower will also do the same on the other side. The greenvale is lovely. Anything that is added there needs to be considerate of what is now there. I would like to see a 3d of how the developmnet will fit. The renderings were only of the buildings, not of the stretscape/neighborhood. JET
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 2:58 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,155
HAC and HECC are considering the MPS ammendments at their next meetings. Regardless of thie recommentdation if Regional Council approves it the plan will move into Development Agreement stage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 4:28 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
HAC and HECC are considering the MPS ammendments at their next meetings. Regardless of thie recommentdation if Regional Council approves it the plan will move into Development Agreement stage.
Are there new renderings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 5:01 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,756
I imagine there will be once a formal proposal is given to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 4:58 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
The allnovascotia.com is reporting that this project could possibly begin sometime next year. The tallest tower has been slightly reduced in height to 18 storeys instead of 24, while the other two remain unchanged at 14 and 7 storeys. It would contain 300 units in all 3 towers.

The allnovascotia states that the project (which is now being referred to as Seagate Residences) received approval from the city hall Heritage Advisory Committee. The next step would be a public hearing at HRM council in December.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 10:42 AM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
The allnovascotia.com is reporting that this project could possibly begin sometime next year. The tallest tower has been slightly reduced in height to 18 storeys instead of 24, while the other two remain unchanged at 14 and 7 storeys. It would contain 300 units in all 3 towers.

The allnovascotia states that the project (which is now being referred to as Seagate Residences) received approval from the city hall Heritage Advisory Committee. The next step would be a public hearing at HRM council in December.
A small clarification that means a fair amount of difference.... The PROJECT was not APPROVED. The Heritage Advisory Committee RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS to the MPS. Essentially this means that they are recommending to council that the rules for this particular site (now, hopefully identified as an opportunity site in the Regional Plan) be changed to provide maximum heights for particular parcels and require some specific Heritage and Urban Design strategies. The developer would have to prepare a submission based on those new rules if Council decides to take the recommendations of its committees.

The way I understand it, the developer submitted a concept to staff and asked for some changes to the MPS to allow extra height. Staff felt what was proposed didn't offer enough in terms of urban design and heritage protection and felt that the highest tower was not appropriate. They drafted some proposed amendments to the MPS to set rules for what they think is appropriate (and take some guesswork out of the process for the developer). That is what is being discussed at council and with committees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 11:35 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Thanks for the clarification. No it is not approved, that is why it has to go to the HRM regional council in December. Actually, the allnovascotia.com story said that it received thumbs up from the Heritage Advisory Committee.

The tallest tower has been reduced by 6 storeys to 18 storeys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 11:56 AM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Thanks for the clarification. No it is not approved, that is why it has to go to the HRM regional council in December. Actually, the allnovascotia.com story said that it received thumbs up from the Heritage Advisory Committee.

The tallest tower has been reduced by 6 storeys to 18 storeys.
18 stories for that site seems OK, but I don't like the footprint of the ochterloney building. There need to be some renderings that show how the new buildings will affect greenvale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 4:08 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
18 stories for that site seems OK, but I don't like the footprint of the ochterloney building. There need to be some renderings that show how the new buildings will affect greenvale.
The renderings were done BEFORE the proposed changes to the MPS were drafted - they don't take the proposed rules into account. We'd be likely to see something (hopefully significantly) different if the changes to the MPS are approved as recommended
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 4:15 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
The renderings were done BEFORE the proposed changes to the MPS were drafted - they don't take the proposed rules into account. We'd be likely to see something (hopefully significantly) different if the changes to the MPS are approved as recommended
Do you know what are the proposed changes? When I read them, it all seemed a bit vague, bit short on specifics. Maybe I missed something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 8:18 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Do you know what are the proposed changes? When I read them, it all seemed a bit vague, bit short on specifics. Maybe I missed something.
As I understand it, the site (4 parcels) is currently developable as-right. When opportunity sites (which allow for higher densities and require Development Agreements) were identified in the regional plan, this wasn't forseen as one.

In the staff report, Attachment A (identified as Page 13) outlines changes to the MPS, and Attachment B to the Land Use Bylaws (essentially the maps identifying it as an "opportunity site").
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2010, 11:35 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,155
Public hearing held tonight and it was a lengthy one. Standard concerns of shadow, height and development quality were raised but as one of the councillors said these will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Most people were happy to see more developments for DD.

In the end I think it was unanimous that the MPS/LUB ammendments were approved so I imagine early in the new year detailed plans will be submitted to HRM for the project.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Good - it's high time we get some good population density going on in Dartmouth! This is a good start; now lets get the development agreement done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 3:28 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I detect a bit of a change occurring in the Halifax area. The councillors seem to be more unified in their support of major developments. This one and the Nova Centre are two recent ones that come to mind.
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 9:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.