HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 3:20 PM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 811
What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 5:19 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!
The garden's south of the tower, so it seems like it wouldn't get shadows from the new building.

This is actually quite a good location for a taller building since Robie and Quinpool are so wide and because the Commons are nearby. There should be higher density development around parks. They are more desirable, and the developments "activate the edges" of the park (in Jane Jacobs pseudoscience speak), making the area more lively and providing more in the way of local shops and services.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 5:20 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!
Well, it could be a permanent location, at least in our lifetimes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 5:21 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!
And upon a non-existent shadow from this building being cast over their precious garden. It would be far better used as a parking lot until the hospital is ready to expand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 5:22 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I don't know that there isn't a place for staff when it comes to policy for city-building. I would rather thoughtful professionals guide the process than a private business.

Not saying OUR professional staff is thoughtful, or that our developers are looking for ways to ruin the city, but I do think that bureaucracy is an important part of how a GOOD city should be built - I feel like it needs targets and an overall plan, not ad-hoc proposals from individual developers

But the bureaucracy's response was equally ad-hoc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2016, 1:39 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
But the bureaucracy's response was equally ad-hoc.
I don't disagree - not much rationale to convince me that 20 stories is better than 29... just as I'm not convinced 29 is better than 20. It's all pretty theoretical, and I would be happy to have clear guidelines rather than "anything over three storeys requires a Development Agreement..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2016, 1:40 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The garden's south of the tower, so it seems like it wouldn't get shadows from the new building.

This is actually quite a good location for a taller building since Robie and Quinpool are so wide and because the Commons are nearby. There should be higher density development around parks. They are more desirable, and the developments "activate the edges" of the park (in Jane Jacobs pseudoscience speak), making the area more lively and providing more in the way of local shops and services.
Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 1:10 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.
Well, you know how those anti-development, left-winger, enviro-loving SJWs are...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 2:45 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.
The sun would have to be in the NW quadrant to cast a shadow on the 'gardens' and by that time the 'gardens' would have had a great deal of sun. The 29 storey monster is NW of the gardens.
The 'gardens' supporters look foolish trotting out the shadow argument, not surprising when none of them could explain 'box the compass'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 5:43 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
The sun would have to be in the NW quadrant to cast a shadow on the 'gardens' and by that time the 'gardens' would have had a great deal of sun. The 29 storey monster is NW of the gardens.
The 'gardens' supporters look foolish trotting out the shadow argument, not surprising when none of them could explain 'box the compass'
We all know this has nothing to do with the garden.

Ironic that those against the capture of public spaces by "private" interests have done just that: they've taken the former QEH site that is to be for the hospital space and taken it ransom.

I'm not against the community garden, but I am against fake arguments because people don't like height. Another irony is that those against height are legitimately causing sprawl due to their imposed constraints on peninsular density. If people say that isn't the case... well, that's just b/s. The city is going to grow and the obstructionists play a big role in whether or not that is out... or up. There is nothing wrong with 29 stories here. It will make Quinpool businesses much more viable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 10:46 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
I'm sorry, but the garden is going to have to go if a good proposal comes for that land. Give me a break.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 12:44 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I'm sorry, but the garden is going to have to go if a good proposal comes for that land. Give me a break.
Since it's 'common land'; I expect that a private 'proposal' would not be considered; and the hospital plans don't seem to include the garden lands. It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 6:09 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
Since it's 'common land'; I expect that a private 'proposal' would not be considered; and the hospital plans don't seem to include the garden lands. It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows.
And that is fine! The issue here is that its temporary use may be used as an excuse to not build height in the area.

There are better places for a garden on the common lands that are less exposed to exhaust.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 6:30 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
And that is fine! The issue here is that its temporary use may be used as an excuse to not build height in the area.

There are better places for a garden on the common lands that are less exposed to exhaust.
I think that you might have missed my last line:
"It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows."
I agree that a 29 storey building would not cast shadows on the urban farm.
I probably should have added a lol or somethin'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 7:48 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I think that you might have missed my last line:
"It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows."
I agree that a 29 storey building would not cast shadows on the urban farm.
I probably should have added a lol or somethin'
I agree! My point is that the logic used against developments like this are frequently not based in reality, but the anti-height crowd has to manufacture ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 5:29 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,133
This project is going forward to Halifax & West Community Council next week for first reading.

http://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/west/...28Item1313.pdf
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 5:11 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,749
I still think this proposal needs some work.
My main concern being the strange changes that run up along the Quinpool Rd facade of the tower. In some of the renderings it looks as if it is made of aluminium panels and in others it appears as though it would be brick. Either material I think would be awkward as it is rotated between colours and glass sections as well. It feels like it makes the tower clunky and unresolved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2017, 5:56 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,133
This project is going before Regional Council on Tuesday for first reading. H&WCC supported the project at the last meeting, provided it is not taller than 62m (~203'). Staff recommended the approval of the proposed 88m height.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0321ca1431.pdf
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ

Last edited by Dmajackson; Mar 17, 2017 at 8:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2017, 10:35 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,133
Halifax regional council moves ahead with shorter version of Willow Tree development
By: Zane Woodford Metro Published on Tue Mar 21 2017

Quote:
A controversial proposal for the corner of Robie Street and Quinpool Road has shrunk by nine storeys after a debate in Halifax regional council on Tuesday.

By a vote of 13 to four, council voted to approve a recommendation from the Halifax and West community council to take the proposed development for the Willow Tree down from 29 storeys to 62 metres, which is about 20 storeys, and schedule a public hearing on the proposal.

Before the municipal election last fall, the last regional council approved bylaw amendments to allow for a 29-storey development on the site, even though municipal planning staff recommended capping it at 20.

...
Read More at metronews.ca
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2017, 12:20 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,999
Utterly ridiculous but unsurprising given our new anti-development council. Zurawski said anything taller than what was already there was "Too TALL!!!!".

I suppose whatever stubby sawed-off structure eventually gets approved for here will require red-brick cladding and faux-Victorian styrofoam cornices.
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 3:55 AM.

     

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