[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by gm_scott

My biggest fear with this project is the two towers turn out really cheap. The height may be a little too much, but the materials scare me the most.

Arguments exist that claim a permission of more height better enables developers to invest in higher quality building materials. Many, many of the appropriately sized buildings in Halifax, which in the minds of many means anything under four storeys, are of poor quality. I don't think the construction of taller buildings should be avoided 'just incase' they may sport poor cladding. There needs to be strict, specific guidelines, through council, to which the developers can easily abide -- and profitably so.

I don't think Skye would turn out as poorly as the grain elevator. Building aesthetical repercussions aside, I'm concerned for the waterfront's atmosphere on which Skye's presence may be overly imposing.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

... I'm concerned for the waterfront's atmosphere on which Skye's presence may be overly imposing.

I don't think that the towers will have a huge impact on the waterfront. Buildings this tall would have the most impact when looking at the city's skyline from a distance, but the experience at the street level is shaped by the finer-scaled details of buildings... in this case, I don't think that the waterfront, a few blocks away, will fell much different at all if these get built.

That said, I am one of the forummers that thought this was a joke. I don't have a problem with the height, or any argument about them being in- or out-of-scale with the rest of Halifax. I just feel that if the city went through the trouble of developing HRMbyDesign, when the original (and rightfully grandfathered) proposal was abandoned by the developer, then the development agreement should have been discharged, and future proposals for the site would have to adhere to HRMbyDesign rules.

[halifaxboyns]

I thought the article which the business group posted was well articulated. I don't fully agree with all of what was said, but I thought it was well thought out and certainly better than any of the nonsense that STV or the HT put out.

What I give Skye credit for is opening up a dialogue, at just the right time. As people have pointed out, HbD was flawed - even Mr. MacKinnon agrees with that. But the proposal is making people think hard, very hard, about what city we want to have.

I've yet to hear any concrete evidence that seeing modern buildings inside the fort would cause negative impacts to their attendance numbers. That said, if the ramparts rule stays I wouldn't be upset. I'm fine either way frankly - but even if the rule does stay, the heights in the DT need to change and be more reflective of the context.

I think Ryejay's point about the waterfront is reasonable but without better rending and details it's really hard to say what will happen or what effects the building will have.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't think that the towers will have a huge impact on the waterfront. Buildings this tall would have the most impact when looking at the city's skyline from a distance, but the experience at the street level is shaped by the finer-scaled details of buildings... in this case, I don't think that the waterfront, a few blocks away, will fell much different at all if these get built.

Unfortunately only a few blocks exist between the Citadel and the waterfront. Closer to the actual water than the Citadel, Skye may potentially have a big impact.

Previously posted by someone123 on the Canada page, the below photo of Halifax during a sunset illustrates how the downtown will be affected by shadows due to its facing north-east. From sunrise to sunset, Skye's shadow may literally linger over the waterfront for perhaps half the day. This is significant because the ambitions of Skye Halifax will likely lead to additional developments of this magnitude, because we are potentially tossing the rampart by-laws. I believe cutting off the waterfront's exposure to the sun for half the day would be a mistake, particularly for a city that must endure the cold winter days.

I say to hell with the HRMbyDesign viewplane height restrictions -- but Skye goes too far.


http://www.visionairimages.com/Boats...lifax09-XL.jpg

[sdm]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Unfortunately only a few blocks exist between the Citadel and the waterfront. Closer to the actual water than the Citadel, Skye may potentially have a big impact.

Previously posted by someone123 on the Canada page, the below photo of Halifax during a sunset illustrates how the downtown will be affected by shadows due to its facing north-east. From sunrise to sunset, Skye's shadow may literally linger over the waterfront for perhaps half the day. This is significant because the ambitions of Skye Halifax will likely lead to additional developments of this magnitude, because we are potentially tossing the rampart by-laws. I believe cutting off the waterfront's exposure to the sun for half the day would be a mistake, particularly for a city that must endure the cold winter days.

I say to hell with the HRMbyDesign viewplane height restrictions -- but Skye goes too far.


http://www.visionairimages.com/Boats...lifax09-XL.jpg

I agree with you with regards to sun shadows. In my opinion, Skye would be better placed in the cogswell lands. I like the idea of the height stepping up slightly from the water towards citadel, and height done in a book end fashion; Port lands being higher, then midrise height through the centre, then back to higher height in the cogswell purdys area.

[Keith P.]

Skye is out of frame to the left in that picture. Given the angle of the sun, any shadows it casts will affect the Bishops Landing/NSPC bldg area. Frankly, that does not concern me.

[eastcoastal]

I believe that in the downtown of a city, you can't expect to have sun on all the streets all the time. I know that's not what is being suggested with RyeJay's fears of impact on the waterfront, but at the same time, I don't think that the shadows from slender buildings like those proposed would actually cause that much impact as they would be under constant movement throughout the day.

Given a blank slate to start from in terms of guidelines for establishing form, I don't think that I would necessarily choose some random points on the parade square of an old fort that did not ever see any action. I also don't think that spying the tops of modern buildings over the ramparts from the interior would really undermine the value of the fort. I believe that a visitor would simply understand that they were in an old fort in the midst of a modern city.... I fail to understand why that should be so terrible.

However, having said that, I also don't think that there is any compelling reason to do away with the ramparts bylaw now that it exists. I think any urban plan needs to have a reason for doing what it does. It's kind of nice to see the values of a plan reflected in the form of the city. I don't see any harm in maintaining the ramparts bylaw.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by sdm

I agree with you with regards to sun shadows. In my opinion, Skye would be better placed in the cogswell lands.

I agree. The waterfront boardwalk ends once you reach Purdy's Wharf Towers.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I believe that in the downtown of a city, you can't expect to have sun on all the streets all the time. I know that's not what is being suggested with RyeJay's fears of impact on the waterfront, but at the same time, I don't think that the shadows from slender buildings like those proposed would actually cause that much impact as they would be under constant movement throughout the day.

The casted shadow will be greater during the winter as the sun's arc becomes smaller, moving south.

And we need to look beyond just the impact of Skye -- because other developers will want to take advantage of a downtown without rampart by-laws. Whatever Skye's impact may be, it's important to ask ourselves if we are at all concerned with this level of impact along the entire waterfront.

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Given a blank slate to start from in terms of guidelines for establishing form, I don't think that I would necessarily choose some random points on the parade square of an old fort that did not ever see any action. I also don't think that spying the tops of modern buildings over the ramparts from the interior would really undermine the value of the fort. I believe that a visitor would simply understand that they were in an old fort in the midst of a modern city.... I fail to understand why that should be so terrible.

However, having said that, I also don't think that there is any compelling reason to do away with the ramparts bylaw now that it exists. I think any urban plan needs to have a reason for doing what it does. It's kind of nice to see the values of a plan reflected in the form of the city. I don't see any harm in maintaining the ramparts bylaw.

A compelling reason to do away with the rampart height limits is to allow developers to propose building heights that may be more profitable and affordable.

I want Halifax to densify and build vertically, but the desire to do so on this tiny portion of land between the Citadel and the waterfront is somewhat irrational considering we may be drastically affecting the boardwalk, which is one of the downtown's main attractions.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

The casted shadow will be greater during the winter as the sun's arc becomes smaller, moving south.

And we need to look beyond just the impact of Skye -- because other developers will want to take advantage of a downtown without rampart by-laws. Whatever Skye's impact may be, it's important to ask ourselves if we are at all concerned with this level of impact along the entire waterfront.

A compelling reason to do away with the rampart height limits is to allow developers to propose building heights that may be more profitable and affordable.

I want Halifax to densify and build vertically, but the desire to do so on this tiny portion of land between the Citadel and the waterfront is somewhat irrational considering we may be drastically affecting the boardwalk, which is one of the downtown's main attractions.

Well I'm going to argue the flip side of the coin on this one. You mention the shadow could be worse in winter - but just how much of the boardwalk is used in the winter when it's cold and windy? Would this really cause a major problem? Also, I'd point out that no one has a right to 'sunlight' or the be prevented from being 'shaded'. I've never seen legislation to prevent that.

That being said, I've been concerned about shadowing of taller buildings should Halifax densify. My thought has been to decrease the bulk of the building as you go higher, creating more point towers. This means that the full bulk of the building (building to every property line) might occur on the first say 3-5 stories; but then you would only get 80% of the bulk up to a certain height (lets say 15 stories). Then beyond that you only get 50% of the floor plate from 16-23 (where the rampart bylaw would typically kick in) and then somewhere between 35-40% for the rest.

By making the tallest portions of the building slimmer the shadow casting effects reduce. This way, you could remove the rampart rule, get buildings appearing to people inside of the fort, but they would be rather slim in nature. You'd balance the taller building and appearance by reducing shadow and likely wind effects too. This would also have the added benefit of likely not walling off protected views, which is something that STV have harped on about which I have some minor concern over. Because the floor plate would be reduced as you go higher, the wall of the building would push away from any protected views (I'm thinking of the skye site as an example).

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well I'm going to argue the flip side of the coin on this one. You mention the shadow could be worse in winter - but just how much of the boardwalk is used in the winter when it's cold and windy? Would this really cause a major problem? Also, I'd point out that no one has a right to 'sunlight' or the be prevented from being 'shaded'. I've never seen legislation to prevent that.

That being said, I've been concerned about shadowing of taller buildings should Halifax densify. My thought has been to decrease the bulk of the building as you go higher, creating more point towers. This means that the full bulk of the building (building to every property line) might occur on the first say 3-5 stories; but then you would only get 80% of the bulk up to a certain height (lets say 15 stories). Then beyond that you only get 50% of the floor plate from 16-23 (where the rampart bylaw would typically kick in) and then somewhere between 35-40% for the rest.

By making the tallest portions of the building slimmer the shadow casting effects reduce. This way, you could remove the rampart rule, get buildings appearing to people inside of the fort, but they would be rather slim in nature. You'd balance the taller building and appearance by reducing shadow and likely wind effects too. This would also have the added benefit of likely not walling off protected views, which is something that STV have harped on about which I have some minor concern over. Because the floor plate would be reduced as you go higher, the wall of the building would push away from any protected views (I'm thinking of the skye site as an example).

I would hope the boardwalk would be used a lot during the winter, especially considering all the residential we're hoping to establish. You are correct though; my concern over Skye's casted shadow would be more applicable for activities and festivals during the summer tourism season.

And yes, having towers which are slim would decrease the build's impact; however, would this mean limiting all skyscrapers in this part of the downtown to point towers in legislation? With the rampart by-laws gone, what if a developer desired to invest in buildings along the waterfront with the girth of Fenwick Tower?

Now that Skye's managed to get two fingers in, I'm worried about the many fists that could follow.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Now that Skye's managed to get two fingers in, I'm worried about the many fists that could follow.

I wouldn't say that Skye's fingers are all the way in yet (she said?). Council has allowed this to go to public hearing - if we're already seeing former supporters of the Twisted Sisters not supporting this incarnation of the site, I think it's very likely the public opinion could be very one-sided. Staff have already recommended against this.

Could be a (clumsy) play by Council to teach the developer not to be so outrageous.

I don't know... the progress of this has certainly thrown me for a loop (I'm one of those forummers who originally thought this was a joke proposal).

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

The casted shadow will be greater during the winter as the sun's arc becomes smaller, moving south.

Right. I still think that if they're moving, the impact will only be temporary.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

And we need to look beyond just the impact of Skye -- because other developers will want to take advantage of a downtown without rampart by-laws. Whatever Skye's impact may be, it's important to ask ourselves if we are at all concerned with this level of impact along the entire waterfront.

Well - I wonder if it'd be different, as this proposal is not asking to be exempt from HRMbyDesign. It's a site that was already grandfathered. I suppose that there's no reason someone else couldn't request to violate the HRMbyDesign rules, but they'd then forgo the "certainty" and faster approval times that HRMbyDesign was supposed to bring.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

A compelling reason to do away with the rampart height limits is to allow developers to propose building heights that may be more profitable and affordable.

I feel as though if height limits are known and fixed (i.e.: post-HRMbyDesign), then developers will propose projects that are economically viable. What we're seeing here is perhaps growing pains.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I want Halifax to densify and build vertically, but the desire to do so on this tiny portion of land between the Citadel and the waterfront is somewhat irrational considering we may be drastically affecting the boardwalk, which is one of the downtown's main attractions.

Boardwalk is nothing without things to do and people to do those things. There's not enough critical mass (yet) to make the boardwalk anything greater than a means to get deep-fried food goods down the throats of tourists in the summers.

[someone123]

It's unclear that Skye would make things much worse given the fact that there are already tall buildings in the area, and you have to compare to the baseline 20 storey HRM by Design building that would be permitted, not an empty site.

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Boardwalk is nothing without things to do and people to do those things. There's not enough critical mass (yet) to make the boardwalk anything greater than a means to get deep-fried food goods down the throats of tourists in the summers.

I am way more worried about this than sunlight. As I've said before, it's a little sad to be fretting over building too much in an area that is mostly surface parking lots. If those lots are undeveloped it doesn't really matter if they are overshadowed or not.

[Waye Mason]

Even the downtown business development commish is against Skye.

http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/...ck-to-the-plan

Yep.

This is just a real estate value play. It isn't going to get built.

[Empire]

It is interesting to note that the entire section of boardwalk that would be affected by Skye shadows is already shaded by trees.
(shade trees)

Shaded boardwalk:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax...12,337.36,,0,0


http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax...cotia&t=h&z=19

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Even the downtown business development commish is against Skye.

http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/...ck-to-the-plan

Yep.

This is just a real estate value play. It isn't going to get built.

If this is the kind of snap judgement you intend to make if you get elected I hope you remain on the outside. We do not need any more close-minded members of council.

As for MacKinnon's comments, they are not against the proposal as much as they are a defense of HRMbD, which he was an early supporter of despite its flawed premise. HRMbD was a "better than nothing" policy, but it is already out of date thanks to the boom in Halifax and should not be slavishly followed. That is hard for planning geeks to accept, but it is reality.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Even the downtown business development commish is against Skye.

http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/...ck-to-the-plan

Yep.

This is just a real estate value play. It isn't going to get built.

I think a new rendering is needed but I sure hope you are wrong about this never being built.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Even the downtown business development commish is against Skye.

http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/...ck-to-the-plan

Yep.

This is just a real estate value play. It isn't going to get built.

I can see how you'd make a judgement like this, considering how long and drawn out this process with United Gulf has been. The city has been wanting to develop this site for many years, and although blame rests with the city in how delayed approval was for the Twisted Sisters -- United Gulf is to blame for this new affront.

If United Gulf wanted to modify the Twisted Sisters to better meet the demands of today's market, that would have been very easy to do within the current rules. Instead, they chose a route that involves a much, much longer waiting time, through the half-conceived Skye Towers. Upon the unlikely chance Skye is approved, the markets will have again shifted -- and there's still no telling whether this approval will be good enough for the developer to finally put a shovel into the ground.

It's almost as though United Gulf doesn't want to build anything here.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If this is the kind of snap judgement you intend to make if you get elected I hope you remain on the outside. We do not need any more close-minded members of council.

What's close minded about believing this project is a farce? I like a lot of proposals in downtown, and I don't like this one, BUT, that said, I also don't think this one is real, for reasons already outlined in this thread by myself and others.