HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:05 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Actually SDM - Phil's argument is almost exactly the same; word for word.
Sad...but I think both will end up at UARB...considering in both presentations they mentioned 'legal advice'.
It always worries me when the heritage groups start using court and UARB in their presentation - I think this will create a huge legal fight. They seem to be focusing on HRM's ability to grandfather these applications. I would hope the spoke with staff at SNSMR...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:17 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Actually SDM - Phil's argument is almost exactly the same; word for word.
Sad...but I think both will end up at UARB...considering in both presentations they mentioned 'legal advice'.
It always worries me when the heritage groups start using court and UARB in their presentation - I think this will create a huge legal fight. They seem to be focusing on HRM's ability to grandfather these applications. I would hope the spoke with staff at SNSMR...
Probably will challenge the roy more then 1595 barrington in my opinion.

I don't like the roy proposal personally as its design is something out of the 70's. This design is more in touch with blending old with new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:26 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Speaking of tired record - Watts is going on and on. I was pleasantly surprised on Councillor Sloane. Leading up tonight, she was in favour of one and not the other. I don't think she liked this one (I could be wrong). She's seems in favour of both now...so something changed.

Although I will give Watts some kudos about wanting to clarify the wind study issue. They can be pretty arbitrary so it would be nice to get that clarified.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:35 AM
BravoZulu BravoZulu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 182
A shot at the folks in the gallery, and now a shot across councillor Watts bow if I'm not mistaken
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:48 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Did sloane just put a motion forward to kill the twisted sisters development?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:49 AM
HRM HRM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Sure sounded like it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 1:58 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRM View Post
Sure sounded like it.
Yeah then the last was a motion to have big box stores maintain a downtown satellite store.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 2:16 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,064
The wind study issue is OVERBLOWN! Watts harps about wind relentlessly. Halifax is a windy city and the idea of redesigning buildings to mitigate wind has no defined outcome. Maritime Centre gets a bad rap from the HT types. Most of the wind around MC is caused by the clear path to the harbour down Salter St. and the clear path for wind to travel down Spring Garden Rd. This location will be windy no matter what size building is there. On a windy day the corner of Barrington & Bishop is just as windy as Salter and Barrington.

Bishop & Barrington

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...=12,53.42,,0,0


Salter & Barrington

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...=12,98.42,,0,0
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 2:24 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
I think the wind issue is normally just a pretext for opposing a building. One good indication of this is the fact that very little attention is given to the actual wind studies themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 3:31 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
So I went out before they voted - this passed correct?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 3:52 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
So I went out before they voted - this passed correct?
Yes this one passed - I think that it was 22 - 2 in favour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 12:41 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Council approves highrise plans
Fans say developments will revitalize Barrington Street, opponents say buildings’ height out of scale for district
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Wed, May 11 - 7:26 AM
Public hearings on two major developments proposed for downtown Halifax attracted a sizable gathering inside the council chamber at city hall Tuesday night.

Supporters and opponents of the planned mixed-use projects, not far from each other on Barrington Street, were at the hearings to let regional council know they are concerned about the future of the central business district.

But they hold opposite views on what the neighbourhood should look like. In the end, council approved both proposed highrise developments.

Fans of the proposals said the projects would help revitalize the downtown. Detractors said the buildings would be out of scale for the district, which includes a fledgling heritage conservation area that has registered heritage structures.

Towers proposed for sites that house the Roy Building and the Discovery Centre were grandfathered under a municipal planning strategy. So both development proposals were considered through an application process that predates provisions in HRM by Design.

Each project is taller than the 21 metres allowed under the new rules for development. Halifax Regional Municipality’s heritage advisory committee gave the Discovery Centre plan its blessing, but it wasn’t fond of the Roy Building’s design.

An advisory committee report to council said plans for the Roy structure don’t comply with city hall’s policy on adjacent buildings. A staff report on the building, though, recommended the development proceed.

As in previous disputes over the planning of towers downtown, the height of the proposed projects and corresponding wind and shadow matters were issues raised during Tuesday’s hearings.

One councillor noted that not only were the arguments familiar, so were the people putting them forward.

Business operators almost always support any new projects, while heritage advocates and others usually condemn major developments downtown and often criticize council and city staff for considering them in the first place.

With respect to the Roy Building, developer Louis Resnick’s sales pitch said his $40-million project would be "spectacular in function and form." The current low-rise building will be demolished soon, he told council.

Other supporters, including Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown), said the proposed development would give the downtown core a much-needed shot in the arm. Opponents, however, chastised council for putting its faith in projects that proponents religiously claim is the next big thing to propel the area forward.

Council heard that the development agreement for the Roy Building project says construction must start within three years.

Project foes suggested the municipal process governing the proposal might be illegal, but city hall’s top lawyer said that was not the case.

Most councillors voted in support of Resnick’s planned Roy Building development. Council voted in favour of developer Frank Medjuck’s Discovery Centre proposal, too.

During the public hearings, there were references to what kind of legacy Halifax council will leave behind. Veteran councillor Bob Harvey (Lower Sackville), who backed both developments, told his colleagues it was "an important night" for this council and the municipality.

"There’s no point having a downtown with heritage buildings that are empty from the ground up," he said.

Coun. Jackie Barkhouse (Woodside-Eastern Passage) wasn’t buying the supporters’ view that highrise projects help make for a more vibrant downtown. She opposed both developments.

"What constitutes vibrancy?" she asked.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 2:51 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I think Jackie Barkhouse does ask a reasonable question and her discussion last night creates a number of questions, which it appears the regional plan (when it was being done) didn't answer?

Perhaps the next regional plan should start off with creation a vision for the city first...then a mechanism to implement it? I really didn't get an impression the current regional plan had a lot of visioning done for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 8:57 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I think Jackie Barkhouse does ask a reasonable question and her discussion last night creates a number of questions, which it appears the regional plan (when it was being done) didn't answer?

Perhaps the next regional plan should start off with creation a vision for the city first...then a mechanism to implement it? I really didn't get an impression the current regional plan had a lot of visioning done for it.
Barkhouse is a NDP anti-development lefty loonie who has yet to support any significant development proposal.

As for a vision of what the city will be, HRM has more visions than you would find in a psychiatric institution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 9:13 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
A lot of people have inconsistent or unworkable "visions" of the city. For example, some want affordable housing but do not want new construction. Everyone seems to want services without taxes. It's pretty easy for a public dialogue on these topics to be of little value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 9:28 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
A lot of people have inconsistent or unworkable "visions" of the city. For example, some want affordable housing but do not want new construction. Everyone seems to want services without taxes. It's pretty easy for a public dialogue on these topics to be of little value.
I guess for me; I look at what Calgary went through to get Plan It passed and see value in what was done to finally establish a vision for HRM.

Calgary did an exercise called 'Imagine Calgary' first - to create a 100 year vision (just high level ideas and thoughts), but this was accepted by council as a foundation document for the MDP (Municipal Development Plan).

So when Plan it was being written, a lot of the new ideas that came about came from Imagine Calgary and that's how it was justified. It just seems to me that if you could create a vision that most would support and get approved by council that tries to balance most issues, then you create a good starting point.

But that's just me...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 9:29 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I had to add this. Bev Miller's comments in the CH forum:
world class laughing stock
The tragedy of these decisions is that Council has been making the SAME decisions for 40 years, starting with Scotia Square, and Barrington St. continues to have problems. The scenario: developer rides into town on his white horse, buys a property or properties and then the rest of the story unfolds something like this.
1) Horror of horrors! Sophisticated developer finds that he has bought a building with serious structural problems-- demolition is the only answer, the building is fit only for the landfill.
2) Sophisticated developer also forgot to read the by-laws and Horror of horrors! he can't possibly be required to abide by them because his building is THE one answer to downtown revitalization. No matter that it will create a colder, darker, windier street, no matter that it boasts another boring glass curtain wall which is lousy environmentally (but cheap to build!), no matter that it will turf out long term tenants and create confusion and construction on the street for years, etc.
3) No matter that Council has also fallen for the same nonsense too many times before (starting with Scotia Square!) and no matter that things will not change and cannot change because this is lousy out-of-date planning. But not to worry, in another years' time, behold another developer on a white horse appears on the horizon....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted May 11, 2011, 11:46 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I had to add this. Bev Miller's comments in the CH forum:
world class laughing stock
The tragedy of these decisions is that Council has been making the SAME decisions for 40 years, starting with Scotia Square, and Barrington St. continues to have problems. The scenario: developer rides into town on his white horse, buys a property or properties and then the rest of the story unfolds something like this.
1) Horror of horrors! Sophisticated developer finds that he has bought a building with serious structural problems-- demolition is the only answer, the building is fit only for the landfill.
2) Sophisticated developer also forgot to read the by-laws and Horror of horrors! he can't possibly be required to abide by them because his building is THE one answer to downtown revitalization. No matter that it will create a colder, darker, windier street, no matter that it boasts another boring glass curtain wall which is lousy environmentally (but cheap to build!), no matter that it will turf out long term tenants and create confusion and construction on the street for years, etc.
3) No matter that Council has also fallen for the same nonsense too many times before (starting with Scotia Square!) and no matter that things will not change and cannot change because this is lousy out-of-date planning. But not to worry, in another years' time, behold another developer on a white horse appears on the horizon....
Where is the developer riding into town on a white elephant and saving all of the heritage buildings and providing low rents for small business, ample affordable housing units, no wind, plenty of sunshine, jobs, jobs, jobs, tourists upon tourist and contented citizens. .........................where
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted May 12, 2011, 1:20 AM
resetcbu1's Avatar
resetcbu1 resetcbu1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I had to add this. Bev Miller's comments in the CH forum:
world class laughing stock
The tragedy of these decisions is that Council has been making the SAME decisions for 40 years, starting with Scotia Square, and Barrington St. continues to have problems. The scenario: developer rides into town on his white horse, buys a property or properties and then the rest of the story unfolds something like this.
1) Horror of horrors! Sophisticated developer finds that he has bought a building with serious structural problems-- demolition is the only answer, the building is fit only for the landfill.
2) Sophisticated developer also forgot to read the by-laws and Horror of horrors! he can't possibly be required to abide by them because his building is THE one answer to downtown revitalization. No matter that it will create a colder, darker, windier street, no matter that it boasts another boring glass curtain wall which is lousy environmentally (but cheap to build!), no matter that it will turf out long term tenants and create confusion and construction on the street for years, etc.
3) No matter that Council has also fallen for the same nonsense too many times before (starting with Scotia Square!) and no matter that things will not change and cannot change because this is lousy out-of-date planning. But not to worry, in another years' time, behold another developer on a white horse appears on the horizon....
These developments are a far cry from Scotia Square and do not have even close to the same size footprint as Sc.Sq which I think was one of the biggest problems with that development , it closed of too much of the street- scape. Also Sc.Sq did not make use of existing old buildings such as Roy and discovery to help presserve the feel at street level that we will see improve with new retail and more friendly feel.Finally technology has come a long way in 40+ years these will have alot more put into them I'm sure, it's like apples and oranges for pete sake! god some of the things these nut jobs come up with
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted May 12, 2011, 3:32 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
It would be somewhat excusable if all these people opposed to developments such as the Roy building and Discovery Centre had legitimate alternative solutions - such as propose more money for heritage preservation from the municipal and provincial governments. Instead they think that they can shame private developers into paying for heritage preservation in which there is usually no profit to be made (thus the exodus to cheaper and easier development in the suburbs).
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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