HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2012, 9:17 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't like the massing and scale of this proposal or the materials. I think they can do a lot better. It's got nothing to do with height though, and actually the height gives the developer the flexibility to have better massing given a certain number of units.

I wasn't at the public meeting so I don't know what the tone was like, but often the terms of debate are wrong. Sometimes members of the public and even councillors (e.g. Gloria McCluskey) treat the meetings as "yea or nay" popularity contests rather than a dialogue on what aspects of the development can be improved. I think this accounts for a huge amount of the friction that exists and it may even result in lower quality development, since a short-circuited process often results in developers running to the NSUARB and then building what they wanted.
This is exactly my issue with public information meetings - which is why I've always encouraged my fellow planners to let people vent and then challenge them (the speakers) for solutions. A few years ago I was doing a land use and had to go to the public meeting and the community wasn't happy and so I sat and let the first person vent. When I responded and challenged him for his solutions, I think the whole room looked at me funny - they weren't expecting it. I guess for me, as a planner, I don't like having PIM's for the sake of you must go out and talk. If I'm going to be there for 3 hours (when I could be at home or doing something else) - I want it to be productive. Yes, the overtime is nice...but still. lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2012, 10:15 PM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
That's actually common. Most of the people who are pro-development have jobs and are too busy working and with their personal life to attend these events.

The anti-development crowd: too much time on their hands, stalling everybody's growth and prosperity. Assholes.
I'm unemployed. All the development going on in this city - except for the truly crappy ones - makes me VERY happy.

But I can still be an asshole, sometimes.

Long may it continue, even if it leaves me in it's metaphorical economic dust.

EDIT: RED BALCONIES FOR EVERYONE!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2012, 11:08 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I am not overly excited about this proposal. I like the density but not the excessively wide buildings. This is a good example of where slimmer, taller buildings would look better (actually, I think slimmer, taller buildings look better everywhere).

I think the developers should take a lesson from the popular King's Wharf building designs and layout.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 12:29 AM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,661
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but CBC ran a rather negative article, saying there was more opposition vs support:

Dartmouth development criticized at meeting

This is a segment that didn't sit well with me:

Quote:
"The Canal Bridge building is on 171 Portland Street and it was built in 2005 and the way that it will be affected is the other building will be towering over it, there will be the increased wind gusts," he told CBC News.

"Our visitor parking has been taken away too, it's been all blocked off by concrete blocks."
I think the Canal Bridge building has the aesthetic appeal of a Country Inns, and the lot that is "their visitor parking", which I imagine is this lot is owned by the developer behind this project, not the condo association. It seems like a nice gesture that he opened the lot up to residents, but all good things come to an end and surface parking isn't near the potential of the lot.

I do prefer the earlier designs, this has more of a modernized hospital vibe. I like the idea of more density in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 4:36 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Ya think? probably more likely that the folks who went to the meeting work at a job and then decide to get out to a community meeting, whereas the others were too lazy to get off their asses and leave their computer screens. Just sayin'
Leave their computer screens? Why don't we all just teleport to the meeting as if time and space contraints aren't significant for those trying to handle their lives and not to go out to a meeting to infringe on a private developers plans that don't seem unreasonable. This argument isn't even about design, its about scale. Lets be real.

Also, I was implying retirees, not the unemployed.

Do you want more Clayton Park specials because of bunch of folks yelled "its too tall" at a meeting???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 4:37 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pblaauw View Post
I'm unemployed. All the development going on in this city - except for the truly crappy ones - makes me VERY happy.

But I can still be an asshole, sometimes.

Long may it continue, even if it leaves me in it's metaphorical economic dust.

EDIT: RED BALCONIES FOR EVERYONE!
All kinds of different businesses that you could be employed at will thrive in dense urban environments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 4:41 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Man, I think you are reading this dead wrong. Being anti-one development does not make you anti-all development.

Dartmouth has been far more receptive of development, within 300 meters even, of that site. But people have concerns about this proposal, concerns many of us on this message board share. Your generalization is just as bad as the anti-everything crowds generalization of developers and those that support them. Not productive.
Naw man, you're off base. I'm not saying in totality about being anti-development. That being said, proposals in Halifax don't get shot down because of poor materials... we'd have no recent construction.

Its a height debacle once again... we don't even have finalized designs do we?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 7:02 AM
Aya_Akai's Avatar
Aya_Akai Aya_Akai is offline
Dartmouth Girl
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 606
Call me the odd one out here, but I actually quite like the new glass and brick design and proximity to the other structures.. I mean, providing good quality materials are used, it almost gives me the same kinda vibe as the distillery district in Toronto...but.. a lot less tall. lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 7:41 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
In my opinion, the developers of this site are re-creating the mistakes of the old Citadel Hotel complex, whereas they should be trying to break the one large massive building into at least two separate buildings. They are trying to build on almost every square foot of their land.

I did a (very) simple illustration based on the site plan - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...49SitePlan.pdf



The building site is an irregular shape. I think the developers need to think more about the design and leave more open space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 3:29 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
In my opinion, the developers of this site are re-creating the mistakes of the old Citadel Hotel complex, whereas they should be trying to break the one large massive building into at least two separate buildings. They are trying to build on almost every square foot of their land.

I did a (very) simple illustration based on the site plan - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...49SitePlan.pdf



The building site is an irregular shape. I think the developers need to think more about the design and leave more open space.
Part of the issue is a large service easement along the canal side of the site. But I agree with you, there are certainly better configurations than what has been proposed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 5:04 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
I agree, if they could re-configure it away from Greenvale, have less massing at the lowest levels, have more of a spire, and have the Ochterloney st building have a smaller footprint (so the old trees are saved), I'd be happier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 7:40 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I like The Fairbanks tower in the site plan and renderings (I like the design and materials). Wouldn't it be possible for the developers to start with a development agreement on this tower to start with. The towers could be developed as a 3 phase development agreement with each phase requiring HRM approval (King's Wharf is being approved in stages).

I also think the conceptual design of The Wentworth looks great, but it is too wide and too close to the Greenvale School Condos. The Wallace looks horrendous, in my opinion, just plain precast walls with windows and balconies. The other two towers look interesting because they have a combination of glass walls and precast walls that provides a good-looking contrast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 7:56 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,318
Partly I wonder if it's even possible to reasonably shoehorn that many units into this site given the presence of the canal. I think it would look a lot better if it were only 200 units. The density would still be reasonable.

I dislike the attitude of some of the residents who seem to view developers as targets that should be pumped for cash to pay for things like canal improvements or the special interest salmon thing. Developers already pay fees and their buildings generate tax revenue for the city. The city should be using its tax revenues to pay for public amenities. Residents want it both ways when they ask for amenities and complain about height or a lack of setbacks.

The fact that the city leans on urban infill developers for special goodies but then falls over itself to develop new phases of Bayers Lake with requisite publicly funded underpasses is, I think, one of the biggest root causes of regional planning problems. Council is all over the board. Sometimes they will readily fritter away millions and other times they abdicate core responsibilities and claim they can't do anything unless somebody else pays.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2012, 2:26 AM
Aya_Akai's Avatar
Aya_Akai Aya_Akai is offline
Dartmouth Girl
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 606
Has anyone else noticed that they're doing work on the area/maybe some of the property this project belongs to? I saw it from Ochterloney, just for a quick second on the bus today so I couldn't pinpoint exactly where, but it was down in behind Greenvale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2012, 2:50 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaliStreaks View Post
Has anyone else noticed that they're doing work on the area/maybe some of the property this project belongs to? I saw it from Ochterloney, just for a quick second on the bus today so I couldn't pinpoint exactly where, but it was down in behind Greenvale.
Its on the Trans Canada trail below Greenvale and this thread's site. I have no clue whats going on though.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2012, 12:39 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
That equipment has been there a while and from what I've seen I don't think it has anything to do with this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2012, 1:03 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,661
It has been a few weeks since I've been over there, but might it have something to do with the Pine Street road work?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2012, 11:23 AM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
It has been a few weeks since I've been over there, but might it have something to do with the Pine Street road work?
it is related to the Pine Street repaving, new sidewalks etc, quite a mess
should be quite the skate board run once it's done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2013, 9:58 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
This project is on the move again;

HAC - Case 17849 - January 30th, 2013

They've reduced the tallest building again. It now stands at 56m/15fl. I think this is fair and a good height for being stuck between parkland and a heritage building.

The proposed development agreement is included above and while there are no colour renderings it does state the base of the buildings will be grey to mimic local stone.

I don't know if the Heritage Advisory Council will recommend approval however we should have a verdict on this project sometime in March or April from Harbour East.

PS hopefully I can stop posting these messages soon but the thread title should be more clear (especially since this is NOT on Pine Street); [Dartmouth] Seagate Residences | 56,54,21 m | 15,14,7 fl | Proposed
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2013, 11:31 PM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
The proposed development agreement is included above and while there are no colour renderings it does state the base of the buildings will be grey to mimic local stone.


source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...th-luxury-site
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 7:32 PM.

     

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