[Halifax] The Maple | 72 m | 21 fl | Completed

[JET]

"considering it is only a loud squeaky-wheel minority that demands them"
just wondering if cyclists are now utilizing squeaky wheels in place of bells and orange flags.

[Nifta]

Kind of going off topic here, but I'd love to see dedicated bus lanes more than cycle lanes (and I'm a regular cyclist). If it was much quicker to get about by bus than car in the city during rush-hour then way more people would use buses. And each full bus takes, what, 60 or so cars out of the traffic jam?

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The height limit for the Metro Park site is 22 meters. So the Metro Park is probably at its maximum height. The maximum post-bonus heights are shown on page 84/93 (map 5) of this document - https://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistri...nts/DHSMPS.pdf.

There is a view-plane over the Metro Park site, which is intended to protect the view of Georges Island from the Citadel. I think that the view-planes are the greatest waste of building potential in the downtown core and should never have been introduced back in the 1970's.

I agree completely with the viewplanes comment with one exception. I still would like to see the view out the mouth of the harbour and as such Maritime Ctr should never have been built. Now, having said that, anything north of Maritime Ctr should never have view plane restrictions as all you can see of the Harbour from any part of the Citadel from the MC northward is such a narrow band of Harbour, it isn't worth restricting. Please, I would like to see a revamping of the viewplanes to be eliminated except for the mouth of the Harbour. Anything north or on the other side of the Harbour mouth view should not have any height restrictions. The downtown of Halifax is so compact we can't afford to restrict new development to the current height restrictions. We have to build higher. I don't really see any reason for any height restrictions at all in the downtown area I have mentioned.

[Keith P.]

AllNS had a story today about the design review committee hearing on this project.

Some bullet points:

- the architect is Mansour Kazerouni from Toronto's Page + Steele IBI
- the design calls for the north side to be illuminated at night
- DRC member William Hyde called that "a discordant element"
- DRC member Jeffrey Pinhey called it a South Beach Miami design
- DRC member Terry Lamothe Smith equated it to Stonehenge
- Smith also called into question whether what is in the proposal is what Southwest will build

I find myself really questioning the value of this group. It seems they feel their job is to take potshots or offer off the wall opinions regarding everything that cones in front of them. I find it hard to see how they are adding any value to the process.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I agree completely with the viewplanes comment with one exception. I still would like to see the view out the mouth of the harbour and as such Maritime Ctr should never have been built. Now, having said that, anything north of Maritime Ctr should never have view plane restrictions as all you can see of the Harbour from any part of the Citadel from the MC northward is such a narrow band of Harbour, it isn't worth restricting. Please, I would like to see a revamping of the viewplanes to be eliminated except for the mouth of the Harbour. Anything north or on the other side of the Harbour mouth view should not have any height restrictions. The downtown of Halifax is so compact we can't afford to restrict new development to the current height restrictions. We have to build higher. I don't really see any reason for any height restrictions at all in the downtown area I have mentioned.

Why do we even need to see the mouth of the harbour? As the city grows the skyline will need to expand, including south of downtown which were already starting to see happen. Maintaining any view is not worth curtailing economic development. We can build an ob tower and see the harbour that way if we need to.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I find myself really questioning the value of this group. It seems they feel their job is to take potshots or offer off the wall opinions regarding everything that cones in front of them. I find it hard to see how they are adding any value to the process.

The weakness I guess is that the process could definitely produce "design by committee", where elements are added or removed based on one-off feedback to avoid upsetting committee members and the final product becomes bland (anything unusual removed) or incoherent (a bunch of disparate pet elements added).

I found an old rendering I made of the Alexander, the old United Gulf towers, and Trillium. Here's what it looks like with this development added. It turns out in retrospect that I was too conservative with the size of the Trillium. Maybe I will change it later:



I still hope we hear about the Alexander tower soon. It would complement the Cunard block tower nicely and would probably be enough for that area to finally come together and feel more like a real neighbourhood. Development of the rest of the empty parts of the Vic lot would also be an enormous improvement but I am not sure how likely that is over the next couple of years.

[RyeJay]

OMG, someone123: Thank you so much for creating and posting your updated rendering!

This looks so good!!

(And the Twisted Sisters look nice next to the BellAliant Tower)

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

OMG, someone123: Thank you so much for creating and posting your updated rendering!

This looks so good!!

(And the Twisted Sisters look nice next to the BellAliant Tower)

I agree about the Twisted Sisters Something is better than nothing. I just hope something of substance and architectural significance gets built there! It has existed far too long as an ugly empty lot! Also, The Alexander looks amazing. I wish we could get an update on this one!

[someone123]

The LSRI and City Centre Atlantic addition would also be visible in that shot and the part of the Nova Centre will be as well.

Of the original United Gulf towers, I liked the narrow one a lot more than the wider one. I think the narrow one would have looked great from Sackville Street. It's possible that the wider one would have looked OK with good glass cladding. I'd like Skye more if it called for a single 48 storey tower instead of twins, or if one of the towers were shorter.

[Keith P.]

The rendering is very well done.

You can really see the tabletop effect of our height restrictions.

Interesting also to see the evolution over time, with the older buildings from the '60s through '80s being quite short for the most part.

[halifaxboyns]

Great rendering, such a shame twisted wasn't built as proposed.

[Empire]

Excellent job on the rendering! The tabletop effect will really take shape over the next couple of years thanks to STV. I have heard STV refer to the skyline as being in danger of developing a sawtooth effect if taller buildings are permitted so they are very much in favour of a block tabletop.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Empire

Excellent job on the rendering! The tabletop effect will really take shape over the next couple of years thanks to STV. I have heard STV refer to the skyline as being in danger of developing a sawtooth effect if taller buildings are permitted so they are very much in favour of a block tabletop.

Really? I would like to ask you who said this, and if it was documented?

Hopefully this isn't merely hearsay, based on exaggerations from anti-STV folk. Any documentation about the STV's preferencing a plateau skyline would be funny to read, considering it's a bit contradictory to most of what I've heard out of that group. Many STV supporters feel as though there is already too much height established in the downtown, and that HRM_by_Design didn't go far enough!

And in any case: the block tabletop narrative isn't totally accurate, considering there is a variety of height in the core at present and in future developments. The Alexander isn't as tall as the Maritime Centre; the RBC Waterside Centre certainly doesn't have Hollis 1801's height; the newly proposed Bank of Canada redevelopment is shorter than the Twisted Sisters (the height to which United Gulf should be allowed to develop once Skye Halifax is rejected).

More than half of the buildings in the downtown don't come close to the ramparts maximum.

An actual example of a block tabletop skyline: Ottawa.

[Antigonish]

I think your being a bit selective. The tallest buildings in downtown dont exceed much more than 85m, but a few stories in compairison is small change in the grand scheme of things. To the naked eye the Halifax skyline is table topped.

[RyeJay]

To the naked eye, you can see I'm not overstating the fact that more than half of the buildings of the downtown do not come close to the ramparts maximum. There is a very clear variety of heights...



Developments around Cogswell is the only area where most of the buildings begin to contribute to the block tabletop effect some forumers are disliking.

The Bank of Canada redevelopment will not contribute to this. It's too distant, too short.

I obviously support the Twisted Sisters, even if it were to help create the appearance of a plateau.

[Antigonish]

Of course there are smaller buildings in the downtown, I wasnt saying every building was around the same height. Not re-assessing or abolishing the ramparts maximum is going to increase the tabletop effect (sorry, gotta agree to disagree on this) that is prevailent in the downtown core.

If they expect to increase floor space and tax revenue in downtown, building above the maximum will be the best or only option at some point. I'm a fan of the suggestions for devoting the Cogswell area to building higher and leaving the viewpane areas where they're at, just not sure where the traffic is going to go when or if they tear it down

[RyeJay]

I'm glad you see the height variety.

With all due respect, 'agreeing to disagree' is often a statement made by those who haven't an argument left. Under HRM_by_Design, the tabletop effect is impossible because of the viewplanes and the height limits for certain areas that are lower than what would have been allowed under the ramparts; otherwise the Bank of Canada Redevelopment may have been somewhat taller.

Visually -- to each their own, I suppose.

I find Halifax quite beautiful, personally. It'll look even better when it fills in more.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm glad you see the height variety.

With all due respect, 'agreeing to disagree' is often a statement made by those who haven't an argument left. Under HRM_by_Design, the tabletop effect is impossible because of the viewplanes and the height limits for certain areas that are lower than what would have been allowed under the ramparts; otherwise the Bank of Canada Redevelopment may have been somewhat taller.

Visually -- to each their own, I suppose.

I find Halifax quite beautiful, personally. It'll look even better when it fills in more.

Theres no need to patronize me, the whole arguement is pretty arbitrary. All I am saying is the skyline is table topped out, if it isn't (which you say) then surely with HRMxD a 66m height restriction would lead it to be table topped in the future anyways.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by NISH89

sorry, gotta agree to disagree on this

I saw this earlier and was going to post that there was no need to apologize for disagreeing with certain members of this forum, but decided against it. Then he goes and insults you anyway.

Once again, my first instinct was correct.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by NISH89

Theres no need to patronize me, the whole arguement is pretty arbitrary. All I am saying is the skyline is table topped out, if it isn't (which you say) then surely with HRMxD a 66m height restriction would lead it to be table topped in the future anyways.

Patronising you wasn't my intention; I apologise. I am simply being straight forward with you, and even expressed 'with all due respect'.

You are correct about this being arbitrary.