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

[-Harlington-]

I just wanna see something built, these vacant lots are getting depressing and always were

I actually think i would have liked the original proposal a little better
or maybe even a smaller scale of this one

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm trying to be optimistic, as well.

I also wonder about how many people think that this proposal gaining approval would be, in a way, opening pandora's box. I wonder if people think height restrictions would be thrown out the window; after all, if Skye can build something this tall, why not others?

Halifax has a unique low-lying skyline, which I love. I support the height restrictions.

I also believe this skinny, sleek exception flatters the existing skyline. This would not be the case if the previously approved twisted sisters were this tall.

I'm in the same boat to a point. I think Vancouver's skyline works for Vancouver and Halifax can accomplish the same density, just in a different way. It may mean we need way more smaller, squat buildings but you can still achieve it.

Do I think some exceptions should be made - well it will depend on the proposal, but I'm open minded enough to consider it.

But if I had my way, the Agricola and Quinpool areas would be the "Vancouver-esque" areas where it would build as tall as you can.

[-Harlington-]

I like the Vancouver comparison
I think Halifax can work with some or add to good density

build up at heights we already have and build tall in certain places
have an odd tall one or two downtown and maybe Dartmouth among other areas

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Wow, this article is really old...2003. Larry hasn't worked for the City of Vancouver since I'd say roughly 2005? Maybe 2006 - he's working in Abu Dhabi now.

It's Brent Toderian who is now in charge of Vancouver's Planning. I know he worked out here in Calgary and knew Larry. I've met Larry twice at a conference, good guy.

Brent has a blog.

What I found interesting was not the people, but the process... they had broad public consultation, they have view planes, they have a lot of development rules, but not a lot of specific design criteria, they have height restrictions. What was missing from the article was what kind of controls they have in Gas Town and Granville Island, for example. The article was pointed out to by someone who thought that Halifax in 2011 is where Vancouver was in their planning cycle in the early or mid 1990s.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I'm in the same boat to a point. I think Vancouver's skyline works for Vancouver and Halifax can accomplish the same density, just in a different way. It may mean we need way more smaller, squat buildings but you can still achieve it.

Do I think some exceptions should be made - well it will depend on the proposal, but I'm open minded enough to consider it.

But if I had my way, the Agricola and Quinpool areas would be the "Vancouver-esque" areas where it would build as tall as you can.

Young St. to Bedford Basin 20-35 storeys. Downtown could stretch from South St. to the Bedford Basin. Quinpool and Agricola are hard sells due to the established residential on the street and in the immediate vicinity.

[Jstaleness]

United Gulf to build 48-storey towers in Halifax

PATRICIA WILLIAMS
staff writer

United Gulf Developments Ltd. has unveiled plans for a $350 million, mixed-use project in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
designed to reflect the city’s sea-faring traditions and rich maritime history.
The two, 48-storey towers resemble a ship’s twin sails, “that push the seafarer toward the horizon,” says president
Navid Saberi.
He said the unique architecture will enhance the city’s reputation as a city of contrasts — one that celebrates its
past while embracing its future on the world stage.
Designed by Toronto-based architectsAlliance, the Skye Halifax will house condominiums that are “especially
sensitive” to the needs and expectations of the burgeoning Echo Boomer market. Units will be designed to
accommodate families, couples and individuals.
The development will include a boutique hotel at the podium level. Retail facilities and restaurants are also
proposed. Some 350 to 400 below-grade parking spaces will be provided.
LEED certification will be sought.
Green features include geothermal heating and cooling, green roof terraces, grey-water systems, low-flow
plumbing fixtures and elements and non-reflective glass.
Secured indoor and outdoor bicycle storage facilities will be provided. Shower stalls will be installed for the use of
commercial and retail tenants who commute to the city by bike.
Patrick LeRoy, United Gulf’s vice-president of operations, said conceptual design has been completed.
Construction is scheduled to get underway before the end of next year.
United Gulf is currently negotiating with three general contractors to construct the project.

“We will employ a construction management team on site to make sure the project is delivered on time and within
budget,” LeRoy said.

From a construction perspective, LeRoy said challenges could include recruiting some of the specialized workforce
that will be needed to build a project of this magnitude.

“The project design is well considered and we do not expect any major complications in this area.”
Halifax-based United Gulf has been in business since 1994.

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/med...s%20online.pdf

[coolmillion]

As far as the comparison with Vancouver goes, that city has given a lot of thought to where tall buildings are located and the aesthetic impact of skinny towers concentrated on the DT peninsula. The skyline is meant to give a dome effect when viewed from a distance with heights increasing in the centre and diminishing on the edges (aided by the topography). Taller "stand out" buildings are permitted in a few locations but they are meant to be landmark buildings of exception design quality. I saw a talk about view cones, building height and the skyline a couple of years ago. In contrast such conversations haven't happened in Halifax, partly because the discourse is largely about maintaining the status quo views from the Citadel. Regarding Skye, I personally think that a building so much taller than everything else dt will look completely out of scale. I'm not averse to tall buildings but they should have some relationship to their surroundings, which Skye lacks.

A similar context in Vancouver to Barrington would be Gastown historic district where the Woodward's district was recently completed. This includes a tall highrise next to low-rise heritage buildings and it is the result of a very long planning and consultation process. It includes public spaces, low income housing, the renovation of historic buildings, public art, etc. etc.

If a developer is going to build a tower that exceeds guidelines it should include amenities for the public, not just ground floor retail spaces that will likely have "for lease" signs in the window for years.

I personally think Skye is a ridiculous proposal. I'm sure it will never get built and I think it's unfortunate that United Gulf owns this prime piece of land. It's obvious that they are in over their heads.

[-Harlington-]

He thinks there will be no complications, lol
How cute, ahah

[someone123]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

A similar context in Vancouver to Barrington would be Gastown historic district where the Woodward's district was recently completed. This includes a tall highrise next to low-rise heritage buildings and it is the result of a very long planning and consultation process. It includes public spaces, low income housing, the renovation of historic buildings, public art, etc. etc.

But how do things like low income housing or public art really mitigate the effect of having a tall building near shorter buildings? I don't think the Woodward condos are amazingly planned, I think that building a highrise next to shorter heritage buildings is just not as big a deal as it's made out to be.

Many skylines have a limited number of buildings without much in the way of surrounding highrises. Frankfurt is one example that looks great. Really the whole debate is about the aesthetics of a poor abstraction -- skyline shape, which cannot even be separated from the design of the highrises themselves. Kind of sad, but such is the state of planning.

I also think that people are exaggerating how dramatic these buildings are, which is particularly easy to do in the absence of renderings. The buildings might end up 50% taller than Fenwick. They are probably not going to be twice the height of downtown office buildings because they are residntial, so the floor heights will be smaller. People who talk about everything in terms of floor count are not accurately comparing building size.

Yet another thing that is annoying about this is how dogmatic this debate has become. There is an implicit "pecking order" of cities and people get upset if they are confronted the cognitive dissonance caused by the flaws in their poor conception of reality. It doesn't matter how tall the buildings in Vancouver are. The real factors are how much the development costs, how much financing the developer can get, maybe how much demand there is for space, and whether or not the city's infrastructure can handle the building.

The other factors are artificial and whatever coherent arguments they might be associated with are not being communicated very well.

[Jstaleness]

These 2 buildings certainly wouldn't be filled over night. What's cool is that there really wouldn't be a bad view from any of the upper floors so they would sell well if priced right. Point Pleasant, Citidel, Public Gardens and the 2 Harbour Bridges would all be within the viewable area. Halifax is a very nice city when viewed from above. I think it would be great if these were built. I would buy there myself if I was single and didn't have 4 kids.

What Someone123 mentioned about height makes sense though. Fenwick is 98m and 33 storeys. So on average that's 2.97m per floor. This doesn't account for lobby and mechanical floors. So by comparison, Skye at 48 would be 142m. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the ground where Fenwick stands is higher above sea level than where Skye would be built. Based on that Skye could even be less than 50% higher making it that much less imposing toward the other towers.
This is very simple math and doesn't prove anything but I just figured for the hell of it.

[coolmillion]

Originally Posted by someone123

But how do things like low income housing or public art really mitigate the effect of having a tall building near shorter buildings? I don't think the Woodward condos are amazingly planned, I think that building a highrise next to shorter heritage buildings is just not as big a deal as it's made out to be.

Many skylines have a limited number of buildings without much in the way of surrounding highrises. Frankfurt is one example that looks great. Really the whole debate is about the aesthetics of a poor abstraction -- skyline shape, which cannot even be separated from the design of the highrises themselves. Kind of sad, but such is the state of planning.

I agree with you that Woodward's isn't perfect, but in the absence of planning controls and consultation, the outcome could have been much worse. And I guess the proximity to DTES and threat of gentrification had a lot to do with the process. I also agree that tall buildings are not incompatible with heritage buildings but that design is the key to their relation. I guess more detailed renderings for Skye might help evaluate it.

[jslath]

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

[Chadillaccc]

How tall is a 48 story tower generally? I know here in Burnaby there is a 45 story U/C and it's 156 meters. So I'm guessing this one is gonna be over 160? That's ridiculous! Considering the tallest in downtown Halifax is only like 90 meters :S

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jslath

However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views ...In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement?

No. The site isn't in the view planes. The bylaw simply does not apply, aside from suggesting that this actually is a good site for a tall building.

An example of privatizing views would be to take the Citadel, hand it to a developer, and charge entrance fees (errr.. Parks Canada already does this!). The views that would be available from this development are not presently accessible to the public. There's nothing to privatize.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

So I'm guessing this one is gonna be over 160? That's ridiculous! Considering the tallest in downtown Halifax is only like 90 meters :S

These two things simply don't follow logically from each other unless you connect them somehow. Your argument as expressed is literally:

1) The tallest building in downtown Halifax is 90 meters, therefore
2) A building over 160 meters is ridiculous.

[q12]

Originally Posted by jslath

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

I wouldn't pay two cents for the view of the oil refinery.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by jslath

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

There is always a risk of having your view blocked by a new development. The views for Skye (should it ever be built) will never be blocked. Interestingly, Skye is the first development since Purdy’s Wharf to take advantage of the incredible view of Halifax Harbour. There are very few residents of HRM (IMO) that go to Citadel Hill for the view. The existing viewplanes legislation protects views from citadel hill and this development does not encroach on those views. The more I look at this development the more I think it should get the green light.

The Cogswell St. interchange is not a dumping ground for everything from tall condominiums to arenas. If you look at the footprint you will see how small it really is. I have heard comments about putting the stadium there. Once the existing streets are reconfigured for that site there will be very little land available for development. To maximize the site the streets (north-south) must be rearranged to open up the interior space. When this is done there will be significant traffic bottlenecks.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

The Cogswell St. interchange is not a dumping ground for everything from tall condominiums to arenas.

I agree. Even if it were gigantic, it's not available. It is an interchange that currently carries traffic and there are no firm plans to dismantle it. And even if it were dismantled, this developer would not own that land. And even if he owned the land, we'd still have most of the same people complaining that the building was too tall...

I have a soft spot for things that are wrong on so many levels.

[Jstaleness]

I still would like to see some professional renderings. If these are to look like sails than it can't be box shaped like the current rendering. Twin Burj Al Arab's maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bu...Arab_Dubai.jpg

All jokes aside though, this is getting a lot of attention. I hope that this is a true proposal and not just a vision that will never be built.

[Jonovision]

The roof height for these towers is planned at 150m plus mechanical and whatever roof feature they add, so in reality it will be around 160m tall.

I believe they are planning an official launch, with a big public meeting within the next month. This will have new renderings as well to help clarify the design.

And they will be at VivaCity on Tuesday to discuss if anyone wants to come out and talk to them.