HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 11:04 AM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
In fact I said the opposite to your interpretation of what I stated - I didn't say that a proposal for the twisted towers should allow twin 48 storey towers. I am not really in favour of twin 48 storey towers. What I stated was that there was no reason for reducing the height limit (through HRM_by_Design) from ramparts maximum which was approximately 90 m (which is 27 - 29 storeys, depending on the design for a residential tower).

I remember when that site was put up for sale. Part of the sales pitch from representatives of HRM was that a building could go to ramparts maximum since it wasn't in a viewplane. This was also indicated by the vote in Council - I believe it was 15-5 in favour of the United Gulf development agreement. So it seems as though people in the minority pushed for the lower height limit. I don't understand your reasoning in believing that HRM_by_Design wasn't to codify what the majority of Haligonians wanted - why wouldn't it be? Several workshops were held; are you indicating that all these workshops were held not to receive input from the majority but to convince people to select a predetermined plan?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I did understand that you didn't particularly favour this proposal, but that you were critical of the heights set by HRMbyDesign which you felt were arbitrary.

Why bother hiring professionals if you're going to let Joe Public make the rules anyway? I think the public workshops were held to get public opinion, but ultimately, it was the professionals who made recommendations (that council changed at will anyway). While I think the public is perfectly capable of stating its opinions, I do not believe it is educated enough to function as an urban planner or urban designer. Just does not have the education.

While I can only speculate on the reasons for establishing a height below the ramparts (not being an educated planner or urban designer myself), I have to wonder if the new height is any less arbitrary than the ramparts law. I know, the ramparts bylaw is based on not seeing buildings from 5 (or so) predetermined points in the parade square of the citadel. I'm sorry, but I think that's a pretty messed up way to guide the urban form of a city people actually live and work in - to make it feel like good-ole-scalping-indians-days from inside an old fort built by our former colonial masters?

So, HRMbyDesign is supposed to be guided by best practices of contemporary urban planning and design. Ostensibly, the heights are guided by the public workshops held, advice from real estate and design professionals, and the input from the (presumably) educated professionals hired to give advice. While I can't say they are absolutely the right heights now, I can't really say that they are better or worse than the ramparts laws. What I will say, is that the intended coherency of heights that relate from one block to the next (I know... doesn't always happen...) is important, and that height planned on a multi-block scale may be the right step.

I don't know if there is a realistic condo market for a building like this. Even if there was, I think something like this might put a serious pause on any other residential development downtown for some time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 11:46 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Sorry I wasn't clear. I did understand that you didn't particularly favour this proposal, but that you were critical of the heights set by HRMbyDesign which you felt were arbitrary.

Why bother hiring professionals if you're going to let Joe Public make the rules anyway? I think the public workshops were held to get public opinion, but ultimately, it was the professionals who made recommendations (that council changed at will anyway). While I think the public is perfectly capable of stating its opinions, I do not believe it is educated enough to function as an urban planner or urban designer. Just does not have the education.
No I don't think that they are arbitrary, I think they have to do with misguided, ultra-conservative views which aren't economically feasible in many cases.

It surprises me that you seem to think that HRM_by_Design height limits were selected based on technical requirements by professionals. Of course the limits weren't - these were chosen based on personal views of people against high-rises. We aren't talking about building design principles, we are talking about artificially low height limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 11:58 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
BTW, AllNS had an article today quoting Phil Pacey, who apparently isn't worried about this one because he thinks it will never be built.
Aside from the absolute lunacy of going to Phil Pacey for a quote - come on, the guy's organization is the main reason the original development never got built because of their friggin' appeal to the UARB, which soundly trashed Pacey when the decision was rendered, so what does AllNS think he's going to say? - it would appear from the article that (a) Phil is once again the head of the HT, a position I thought he had stepped down from because the other members realized he was too much of an obstructionist even for them, and (b) Phil seems to think the proposal is for office space, because that's what he talks about when dissing it. I mean, if he doesn't even know that much, why bother even using his opinion?

The roots of AllNS going back to Frank Magazine do seem to undermine their credibility from time to time. Their desperation to fill space with something even if it is pure BS damages AllNS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 12:06 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
With all the criticism of this proposal, with people bringing up the MPS, HRMbD, the ramparts law, etc; I think there is one question that needs to be asked.

Since nobody has ever, to my knowledge, proposed any building even close to being this tall for anywhere in Halifax before, much less two of them, and much less in the downtown core, it seems likely that none of the policies and principles and strategies for development even took such an occurrence into account.

Therefore you are dealing with uncharted territory. Since such a prospect was never foreseen the strategies et al were never developed with this in mind. Therefore it is a logical argument to suggest that they do not apply and that the development needs to be considered on its own merits.

Any major new development proposal brings with it things that do not fit into the existing development and planning framework. If you built an airport somewhere, then the planning rules for the surrounding area would need to be changed to accommodate it, for example. I see this as little different. To argue that HRMbD didn't allow for it, therefore it must be dismissed, is absurd. This is a $350 million investment in downtown. You cannot arbitrarily turn it down just because a bunch of planners never saw it coming and instituted a bunch of height limitations to pacify a minority special interest group.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 1:06 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It seems to me that HRM by Design was the easy way out for council. It was a way to make a change without having to make any tough decisions and reallocate sorely-needed money to the downtown. Talk is cheap, and plans are only half a step better.

The fundamental problem with the downtown circa 2005 was not that too many bad buildings were built, it was that it just isn't a great area for businesses because the cost-benefit ratio in terms of taxes paid vs. services and convenience was not there. The way to change this is to do stuff like build good transit (making the area more convenient), spend money to clean things up, or cut taxes. Councillors don't want to do that because it means less money for their hockey rinks and so on.

I do think the quicker approvals of HbD are a significant benefit, but I also agree that it all felt very much like an abstract planning exercise that was not very concerned with economic realities.

I also agree that the rules about building heights seem arbitrary. A lot of people in Halifax have a horrible moralizing attitude toward development (and wealth, and a lot of things) and think that their personal opinion over something being "excessive" ("well, 9 storeys is okay, but 11 is just too much") should be enough to have the government put a stop to it. That attitude is seriously one of the main reasons why I would hesitate to move back to the city.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
With all the criticism of this proposal, with people bringing up the MPS, HRMbD, the ramparts law, etc; I think there is one question that needs to be asked.

Since nobody has ever, to my knowledge, proposed any building even close to being this tall for anywhere in Halifax before, much less two of them, and much less in the downtown core, it seems likely that none of the policies and principles and strategies for development even took such an occurrence into account.

Therefore you are dealing with uncharted territory. Since such a prospect was never foreseen the strategies et al were never developed with this in mind. Therefore it is a logical argument to suggest that they do not apply and that the development needs to be considered on its own merits.

Any major new development proposal brings with it things that do not fit into the existing development and planning framework. If you built an airport somewhere, then the planning rules for the surrounding area would need to be changed to accommodate it, for example. I see this as little different. To argue that HRMbD didn't allow for it, therefore it must be dismissed, is absurd. This is a $350 million investment in downtown. You cannot arbitrarily turn it down just because a bunch of planners never saw it coming and instituted a bunch of height limitations to pacify a minority special interest group.
Agreed.

If this guy wants to spend $350 million dollars to build something on a BIG HOLE in downtown Halifax, I don't care if its 30 stories or 50 stories but I'm certainly not going to complain about. This complaining epidemic that exists in this city is starting to make me insane. This project is so big it needs to be given special attention and to dismiss it based on height alone is ridiculous. Telling a developer this is what you must build and you cannot think outside the box is also ridiculous. It's the developers money. We are lucky there are still developers left who are willing to develop in this backwards city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 1:47 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
I realize this proposal seems far fetched to make it through the process but the more I think about this the more I think I see where Mr. Saberi is coming from with it.

For one, the fact that Phil Pacey is passing it off as a non issue is probably one of the things UG is banking on. If the HT and other wingnuts dont take it seriously, it may make it through the process before they even realize whats happening. Also, This proposal is so much larger and high profile than anything else proposed around here, it may be enough to truly bring the pro development crowd out of the woodwork to support it. I just hope the folks on our side aren't complacent as well.

As well, back in 2004 when the original proposal came forward it was one of the first major developments proposed for downtown in quite a long time. Now being 7 years later with little change, this proposal may make it on the simple basis that downtown needs anything at this point. Not to mention that by the time this goes to council, has anyone considered that we may have a completely new set of council members? If a set of pro development/business minded people are elected next year, it could be a real swing in favour.

It may be debateable to call the convention centre a downtown savior, but I think this would be different. It would be a savior for downtown in every sense IMO. It would smash the height barrier and set a precendent in the city that will change it forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 3:19 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 34,450
I am very glad to see that there is still continued interest in the Tex-Park site. I find the presence of that vacant hole in the core to be particularly vexatious (I am assuming that the Nova Centre will be approved and that the old Herald site will be filled in).

The thing that disturbs me though about this particular proposal is the sheer scale of twin 48 storey towers. They would quite literally dwarf anything else in the downtown. To use Moncton as an example, I have never been a fan of Assomption Place. Aside from the fact that Assomption Place is architecturally boring, it is a 20 storey building which towers over the stock of low rise building in the downtown. The next largest buildings in the city are in the 8-12 storey range. This disparity takes away from the scale of the city. I have always been of the opinion that Assomption would have done more for the city if it had been two 10 storey buildings instead.

The scale of the original Twisted Sisters project would seem more appropriate to me. I think anything over 25-30 stories would be a mistake.

My two cents.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 4:48 PM
-Harlington-'s Avatar
-Harlington- -Harlington- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Halifax-Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,097
could anyone with photo skills render these towers into a skyline shot from Dartmouth to see how they would or wouldnt fit ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 7:28 PM
David1gray's Avatar
David1gray David1gray is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 739
did this up really quickly. im off to work now, ill try to do a better one later.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 7:50 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Good first attempt, but the towers look too thick and too close together compared to the renderings I've seen.

I think it would look tremendous. Don't listen to the guy from Moncton - he's just trying to keep Halifax down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 7:54 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I think the planned towers are a little narrower than suggested by that rendering. The gap between the towers is also almost as big as the width of each tower. It's really hard to make a good rendering without clearer pictures and, ideally, elevations with actual height data. Edit: Keith P. just mentioned exactly this.

Interesting to see Nova Centre in there. There's also the Roy proposal and Discover Centre, so the local context may change a lot in a few years. I am not sure, but the empty lot below Hollis next to the Bank of Canada may also be suitable for a tall building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 8:26 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,060
Photo & photoshop by Empire: _________[Skye Halifax Proposed]
__________________
Salty Town

Last edited by Empire; Jul 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 10:13 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Since nobody has ever, to my knowledge, proposed any building even close to being this tall for anywhere in Halifax before, much less two of them, and much less in the downtown core, it seems likely that none of the policies and principles and strategies for development even took such an occurrence into account.
There was Centennial Group's observation tower which was described as being equivalent to a 45 story tower. It was proposed as part of the Salter Street proposal. Ralph Medjuck seemed to be very serious about building it as an icon of the Salter Street proposal. That tower wasn't even allowed to go before HRM Council.

It will be interesting to see if any fireworks come out of this, or if it quickly fizzles out. Will it even get to be presented before Council?

PS: If this is all just a publicity stunt to promote United Gulf then it seems to be working ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 11:58 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I thought the developer chose to remove the observation tower from the Salter proposal.

I am not sure if the original proposal would have gone to council or it predated that change and would have been destined for the PCC. Up until a few years ago all it took was 2 councillors to stop a proposal from even going to public consultations -- there were only 4 PCC members and a tie resulted in rejection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 1:25 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558

According to this 4 year old story that was posted in another forum, the HRM planning staff requested that it be removed. (source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...386681&page=11 )

I believe that this was taken from the Chronicle Herald, from around May 1st 2007 when the story was posted on the Skyscrapercity forum by HaliGuy.
Quote:
Waterfront development on the way
Halifax waterfront proposal, Take 2


By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter

A brand new development could be rising up from old parking lots on the Halifax waterfront before the end of the year.

The Centennial Group Ltd.’s latest proposal for the corner of Salter and Lower Water streets quietly received approval from two city hall advisory committees last week.

The next step is to appear before regional council to set a date for a public hearing, chairman and CEO Ralph Medjuck said Monday.

"We’re pleased with it," Mr. Medjuck said about the development, which includes a five-storey hotel with 96 rooms and a 142-unit residential building ranging in height from five to 12 storeys. The last three years have seen the proposal undergo adaptations to comply with planning staff requests for the development.

One of the first things to go was a CN Tower-like space needle.

"That was a shame because it could have been a great icon," Mr. Medjuck said of the innovative tower, which received a lot of attention when it was unveiled.
.
.
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 2:16 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,930
This is totally out of scale with everything, and flies in the face of all regulations etc., but it reminds me a bit of the WTC twin towers.
I think it's great, and hope it gets built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 3:37 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
The observation tower was forced out by staff.
When this hit the airwaves, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people on the planning staff had a hard time breathing or a few palpitations.

But Keith is right - the rules were proposed back in a time when the economic development of the city (at best) was still in the 15 to 20 storey commercial tower and condos weren't hitting the heights we see today. So considering the context of adjacent development and when the rules were written, of course this isn't going to meet the rules nor will it ever.

If council goes forward with this, they would essentially be reconsidering some key planning principles to come into now (versus when the policies about the ramparts came into effect back in the late 70's). Is that okay? Well, I'm always a firm believer that keeping policy up to date is important and certainly this concept is roughly 40 years old. It could do with a revisit - my only concern is that this is a concept (I think) that should be done as part of a regional planning exercise, not because of an application. The reason I say that is that you could put more emphasis to going forward with much taller buildings or changing the policy if you tied it into something like focusing such high density into 'opportunity areas'. Example: Let's say a new regional plan identified the hydrostone or the lands around the forum as an opportunity area for redevelopment. You could tie policy to encourage a specific form of development to the idea of encouraging high density/taller buildings to these opportunity areas.

I don't know if I would be okay with such a tall building being so prominent...but, I would get used to it if it was approved. It's not make or break for me.

But I am a firm believer of 'playing the game' that the HT wants to play. So if this doesn't go forward, I'd want places like the lands around the forum, Agricola, Gottingen Street and Quinpool (some of the area's the HT minions have continually identified as the 'ideal' place for tall buildings (their words)) identified as opportunity centres and go 48 stories, or higher.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 5:01 AM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
I love it! Put some density downtown finally!!

Keith you hit it with a needle, Halifax didn't see this coming.

Maybe with the amount of people this will bring, we'll have a grocery store downtown again.
__________________
We may smile at these matters, but they are melancholy illustrations. - Joe Howe

go dogs go!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 11:05 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
The observation tower was forced out by staff.
When this hit the airwaves, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people on the planning staff had a hard time breathing or a few palpitations.

But Keith is right - the rules were proposed back in a time when the economic development of the city (at best) was still in the 15 to 20 storey commercial tower and condos weren't hitting the heights we see today. So considering the context of adjacent development and when the rules were written, of course this isn't going to meet the rules nor will it ever.

If council goes forward with this, they would essentially be reconsidering some key planning principles to come into now (versus when the policies about the ramparts came into effect back in the late 70's). Is that okay? Well, I'm always a firm believer that keeping policy up to date is important and certainly this concept is roughly 40 years old. It could do with a revisit - my only concern is that this is a concept (I think) that should be done as part of a regional planning exercise, not because of an application. The reason I say that is that you could put more emphasis to going forward with much taller buildings or changing the policy if you tied it into something like focusing such high density into 'opportunity areas'. Example: Let's say a new regional plan identified the hydrostone or the lands around the forum as an opportunity area for redevelopment. You could tie policy to encourage a specific form of development to the idea of encouraging high density/taller buildings to these opportunity areas.

I don't know if I would be okay with such a tall building being so prominent...but, I would get used to it if it was approved. It's not make or break for me.

But I am a firm believer of 'playing the game' that the HT wants to play. So if this doesn't go forward, I'd want places like the lands around the forum, Agricola, Gottingen Street and Quinpool (some of the area's the HT minions have continually identified as the 'ideal' place for tall buildings (their words)) identified as opportunity centres and go 48 stories, or higher.
I would like to see tall buildings at opportunity sites and protect quality existing historic structures such as Waterside, brick row houses on South St., some on Barrington etc. Opportunity sites would be all of Windsor/Kempt Rd. corridor, Tex Park, Cogswell Interchange, all of downtown Dartmouth etc.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 11:58 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Although I have doubts that this proposal will even get before HRM Council to be voted on, I found the following article/blog by Rick Howe:

by Rick Howe on July 22, 2011 in Halifax News Net - http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Ar...-July-22nd2011
Quote:
.
.
.
I took a bit of a beating on my radio talk show on News 95.7 yesterday while discussing developer Navid Saberi's proposed new downtown Halifax project. Saberi plans on scrapping his Twisted Sisters development on the old Tex Park site, replacing it with something he calls Skye Halifax, two 48 storey towers. I made it clear on air my opposition to the proposal, suggesting it wasn't a good fit with the downtown but a majority of callers during an hour long discussion disagreed. The consensus seemed to be if it creates jobs and brings in increased tax revenue, then bring it on and so what if the high rises dwarf the downtown skyrise. Sigh.
.
.
.
It is good to see the support for something different in Halifax by the majority of callers, as reported by Rick Howe. Hopefully many of the supporters won't have to move away (the HRM needs more progressively thinking people).

I seem to agree with many of Rick Howe's opinions. Even for a skyscraper enthusiast such as myself, this proposal seems to be too high.

What are the opinions of others on a compromise proposal? Say 35 stories and ~110m which would make it the new tallest building in the HRM (however, the design would have to be better than the one for the twin 48 storey towers). Or even just go back to the height that was granted before; fair is fair, HRM_by_Design reduced this height without specific agreement by Council or the HRM public, whereas Saberi had an agreement with Council, which seemed to be supported by the majority of the public, for twin 27 storey towers.
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 8:21 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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