HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 7:43 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
If height limits were relaxed for this area, what's the likelihood of developers taking advantage of this? Given the downtown has yet to completely fill in, how immediate would developers shift focus away from possible locations in the more desirable downtown to taller possibilities in this comparatively scarce area of the northend?

I'm looking forward to a 30+ proposal that will push the boundaries of this issue, since I find it unlikely that change will come from council's good will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 10:37 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
There was a rather incoherent letter - more of a rant, really - in AllNS today from a Bridget Quigley about this project. It is a very fine example of the irrational attitudes in this town towards any building of any size. She promises that this will be made an example of in order to discourage anyone from proposing anything taller than 5 floors in the future - sort of a "head on a post" strategy I presume. She calls this one "mega-density" and promises an ugly fight. It is classic NIMBY-ism, as she contends that the residents of this area (there are no residents in this area, remember) should not be subjected to this, but that the residents of Lady Hammond road (where there are actually houses) should be the subjects of tall buildings instead. Then the letter degenerates even further into a bizarre reference to the Chrysler Building, theme parks, and some other babbling that I highly recommend to your attention. The Heritage Trust would be proud of her. Perhaps she can be their next Exec Director.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:09 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
There was a rather incoherent letter - more of a rant, really - in AllNS today from a Bridget Quigley about this project. It is a very fine example of the irrational attitudes in this town towards any building of any size. She promises that this will be made an example of in order to discourage anyone from proposing anything taller than 5 floors in the future - sort of a "head on a post" strategy I presume. She calls this one "mega-density" and promises an ugly fight. It is classic NIMBY-ism, as she contends that the residents of this area (there are no residents in this area, remember) should not be subjected to this, but that the residents of Lady Hammond road (where there are actually houses) should be the subjects of tall buildings instead. Then the letter degenerates even further into a bizarre reference to the Chrysler Building, theme parks, and some other babbling that I highly recommend to your attention. The Heritage Trust would be proud of her. Perhaps she can be their next Exec Director.
What this city needs is less Bridget Quigleys and much more density on the barron lands from Pierceys to the Bedford Basin. New crane at Hemlock Ravine, one waiting on Joseph Howe and one waiting at the library. Whatever will she do?
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:40 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
I hope Bridget Quigley's anti-development letter is widely read. This will work against her and further fuel the fire that is public discontent toward this kind of economic obstructionism.

Bridget Quigley's opinions on development are of the minority, and the more people read her opinions the more people will realise, not only, just how out of touch this minority is, but just how small this minority truly is.

Halifax will rise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:41 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
There was a rather incoherent letter - more of a rant, really - in AllNS today from a Bridget Quigley about this project. It is a very fine example of the irrational attitudes in this town towards any building of any size. She promises that this will be made an example of in order to discourage anyone from proposing anything taller than 5 floors in the future - sort of a "head on a post" strategy I presume. She calls this one "mega-density" and promises an ugly fight. It is classic NIMBY-ism, as she contends that the residents of this area (there are no residents in this area, remember) should not be subjected to this, but that the residents of Lady Hammond road (where there are actually houses) should be the subjects of tall buildings instead. Then the letter degenerates even further into a bizarre reference to the Chrysler Building, theme parks, and some other babbling that I highly recommend to your attention. The Heritage Trust would be proud of her. Perhaps she can be their next Exec Director.
It is one of the craziest NIMBY letters I have ever read.

Obviously there many factual errors, but what bothers me the most is the underlying assumption that a "neighbourhood" (typically a small club of homeowners of some narrow demographic) is entitled to dictate what others can do with their own property.

Bridget Quigley deciding that new buildings must be no more than 5 storeys is similar to Reverend Britton deciding that her "community" is entitled to HRM property, or Gloria McCluskey deciding that we don't need to hear from a developer if she's already made up her mind. Meanwhile, 95% of the city does not get a voice. For example, we almost never hear from the people who need the housing that these developments would provide. We don't hear from all the younger people who want to live on the peninsula but cannot because the NIMBYs have priced them out. Very often the developers despite putting far, far more money and effort into the development process than anybody else are the least likely to be heard by the councillors. At least we have the NSUARB to overturn the poorly thought-out decisions frequently rendered by HRM councillors.

I look forward to many highrises being built in the North End. Hopefully we can get some mega density right next to Briget's house too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 1:02 AM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,024
I couldn't finish reading that tirade last night, I can only imagine Allnovascotia posted it because it illustrates how ridiculous and stubborn some of these anti-development people are, she makes a mockery of herself. Councilor Blumenthal had a good stance on this one, he basically said "let it go through the process and see how people feel about it". I hope this lady and her bridge club come out guns a blazing against this one, I don't think there is any logical opposition - which will hopefully deter further obstructionism.

If council stays the course, this should be easily allowed as they seem to point towards this area and the Cogwell interchange area as being the only spots on the peninsula allowed to have density. Local politicians are so trigger happy to attribute anything positive towards the shipbuilding contract they will probably want this to go ahead as a sign of prosperity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 1:12 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Really didn't understand the Chrysler Building reference...

I'm curious to see how much opposition there actually is at the meeting next Thursday. There are only one or two houses even remotely near to the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 2:41 AM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
Really didn't understand the Chrysler Building reference...
Yeah, I think somebody needs a trip to NYC to see what real mega density actually is. comparing this to the chrysler building is comparing mice and men.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 4:02 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Her neighborhood? I wouldn't even walk around there at night because it still sketchy as shit due to the empty lots and incoherent, dark alley, nature of everything. Its a bit better near the hydrostone, but just marginally.

If a nice tall building with alot of people was built on this lot, I would feel more secure that somebody would come to my aid if something were to happen. At this point I don't even see people walking around here hardly at all during the evening... which is somewhat indicative.

This is beyond NIMBY, this is BANANA tactics. I'm sure we'll find out that this person is involved with some group that doesn't like development, I'll guess enviro-people. Ah, did all of them skip the chapter on the benefits of density... oh, I forgot, height is for evil capitalists who want to build pipelines.

The argument for NOT building this is weaker than actually allowing the ugly buildings on certain parts of Robie, south of Young / north of North, to continue to stand.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Young+S...,91.79,,0,-2.9

These two converted houses are absolutely eye gougingly ugly. Halifax should focus on the way our landscapes look and are organized, the height is really secondary. I'm not down for bulldozing neighborhoods, but this area of the city is hardly a neighborhood in certain parts along here, its more like an industrial wasteland of lots that need to be converted to high density developments so we can solve our public transportation and other issues.

But... I'm pro development, so I guess I'm wrong... These wingnuts don't even know how to solve the very problems they face. Hilarious to me... Halifax will eventually prevail and these chumps will act like they were part of the solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 4:57 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Could someone post a copy of her letter on here? I don't have Allns access but I would like to read it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 6:39 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Her neighborhood? I wouldn't even walk around there at night because it still sketchy as shit due to the empty lots and incoherent, dark alley, nature of everything. Its a bit better near the hydrostone, but just marginally.

If a nice tall building with alot of people was built on this lot, I would feel more secure that somebody would come to my aid if something were to happen. At this point I don't even see people walking around here hardly at all during the evening... which is somewhat indicative.
I walk the area all the time at night. It is sketchy as hell but its a nice change to get the sidewalk all to yourself.

I just trust that if anybody tries to rob me at night the drug-addict that hides near my place at night will come to my rescue (or at least distract the theif).

Quote:
This is beyond NIMBY, this is BANANA tactics. I'm sure we'll find out that this person is involved with some group that doesn't like development, I'll guess enviro-people. Ah, did all of them skip the chapter on the benefits of density... oh, I forgot, height is for evil capitalists who want to build pipelines.
I sense some sarcasm here and thats fine but I would like to point out I volunteer for an environmental group here in HRM that is not anti-development. We do advocate for environmental protection but we never say adding more people to the area is a bad idea (rather its great for trail-building and environmental awareness).

Quote:
These two converted houses are absolutely eye gougingly ugly. Halifax should focus on the way our landscapes look and are organized, the height is really secondary. I'm not down for bulldozing neighborhoods, but this area of the city is hardly a neighborhood in certain parts along here, its more like an industrial wasteland of lots that need to be converted to high density developments so we can solve our public transportation and other issues.
LMAO!

That describes my neighbourhood exactly. For security reasons I won't post what my neighbours are but lets just say they are even more random then the places near this proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 7:07 AM
coolmillion's Avatar
coolmillion coolmillion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 295
Most of the North End looks way sketchier than it actually is. Actual crime statistics probably show a fairly even distribution of random assaults and muggings throughout most areas of the Peninsula. My parents live near Robie and Jubilee and there have been two gun incidents within 100 m of their house in the past year that were not even reported in the media. They only found out about them because (exasperated) police knocked on doors in the area.

Coming from someone who used to regularly walk home from downtown at 3am: sketchy is in the eye of the beholder! When things don't feel right, walk faster. That said, I've heard plenty of stories of muggings and swarmings around the Commons and Gottingen but thankfully these seem to have leveled off in the past couple of years.

A good place for development but I'm not impressed with the design thus far...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 7:58 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
This is beyond NIMBY, this is BANANA tactics. I'm sure we'll find out that this person is involved with some group that doesn't like development, I'll guess enviro-people. Ah, did all of them skip the chapter on the benefits of density... oh, I forgot, height is for evil capitalists who want to build pipelines.
Huh? Did Bridget Quigley claim she is against this project due to people who are environmentally concerned? (which is virtually everyone under fifty years old with at least a high school education)

Environmental types push for density.

Building higher deters from sprawled developments: so these 'enviro-people' would be misguided, which is rather odd because I've never met a person who has studied environmental sciences who is against vertical developments...nor Capitalism for that matter. Pipelines, yes: but fossil fuel energies have absolutely nothing to do with our necessity to futher urbanise Halifax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 2:33 PM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
There was a rather incoherent letter - more of a rant, really - in AllNS today from a Bridget Quigley about this project. It is a very fine example of the irrational attitudes in this town towards any building of any size. She promises that this will be made an example of in order to discourage anyone from proposing anything taller than 5 floors in the future - sort of a "head on a post" strategy I presume. She calls this one "mega-density" and promises an ugly fight. It is classic NIMBY-ism, as she contends that the residents of this area (there are no residents in this area, remember) should not be subjected to this, but that the residents of Lady Hammond road (where there are actually houses) should be the subjects of tall buildings instead. Then the letter degenerates even further into a bizarre reference to the Chrysler Building, theme parks, and some other babbling that I highly recommend to your attention. The Heritage Trust would be proud of her. Perhaps she can be their next Exec Director.
The scariest part of that letter (aside from how incoherent it was) was her statement that the reason to fight this is to use it as a way to kill all tall proposals. It is scary because I truly believe that that is what HT folks really think they might try and do here. It is not that they are against this proposal persay, it is that they think that they can make an example of it in the hopes that it prevents developers from proposing "tall" buildings anywhere on the peninsula.

That won't happen of course, and if anything it shows the desperation of their cause. Having said that though, it is still a pretty insane situation when developments can be fought against to make generalized statements about height, even when those developments are on a largely commercial block of thoroughfare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 4:47 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Got some renderings from a friend.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:04 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
Got some renderings from a friend.



It's another Trillium without the bonnet......
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:14 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086


Thanks for the renderings, Jono.
The perspective offered in the second picture makes me smile!

More proposals for this area!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 6:04 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
Huh? Did Bridget Quigley claim she is against this project due to people who are environmentally concerned? (which is virtually everyone under fifty years old with at least a high school education)

Environmental types push for density.

Building higher deters from sprawled developments: so these 'enviro-people' would be misguided, which is rather odd because I've never met a person who has studied environmental sciences who is against vertical developments...nor Capitalism for that matter. Pipelines, yes: but fossil fuel energies have absolutely nothing to do with our necessity to futher urbanise Halifax.
Oh Ryejay, DJ got my sarcasm.

And if you have been following Halifax development... the environmental groups have been against most tall projects, so that's moreso a fact. I don't know if most of them have "studied" environmental science or have any background in science at all.

I was making a joke that was somewhat lost on you I guess. My point was really that these groups come out of the woodwork every time something is proposed.

I'm "pro-environment", but I don't blindly believe in any ideology and have studied both the science and economics behind the environment. Honestly, undeveloped and unremediated lots and low density must generate more negative externalities in the context of the environment that tall, efficient development on sites that are otherwise potentially polluted and underutilized vs. cutting down more trees and developing outward as a city.

The precedent tone really scares me. Its crazy that these people openly expouse these opinions that are totally against all tall development like its perfectly normal / acceptable, when they are really infringing on the freedoms of property owners and developers. Screw these people telling everybody what to do, its simply ridiculous.


The renderings look fantastic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 7:04 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
^ I love those renderings

BTW in case it wasn't mentioned before I talked to the HRM planner assigned to this case and the PIM is actually next Thursday (February 9th, 7pm, Bloomfield). They moved it up from the beginning of March. I have the time booked off so hopefully I'll be there and see a few forumers as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 8:07 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
edit.

Last edited by RyeJay; Mar 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM.
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 11:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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