HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    307 Prince Albert in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2012, 10:32 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I love it... I think something like this downtown would work well.

How long before the public outcry? I bet it will start right around the time when the public process starts.
Posted this about a year ago... either I'm psychic or development in Halifax always goes this path.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 5:51 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
No surprise here but the developer appealed the HCC decision;

http://www.nsuarb.ca/images/stories/...nvestments.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 6:15 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Someone should contact the UARB - that notice is wrong.
It wasn't the Development Officer that refused their application - it was the Harbour East Community Council. I'm not sure if that really matters, it's probably just a technicality, but still...since it's lawyers dealing with it I suspect the notice should be correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2012, 7:42 AM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 964
I got this E-mail about The Price Albert:

"Hello Everyone,

I'd like to take this opportunity to update you on the proposed The Prince Albert development. As many of you know, the community council process was shut down by three of the six councillors at first reading on January 17th. Dismissing our right to a fair and open hearing, and summarily dismissing the right of the public to participate in what was supposed to be a fair and open process, was a difficult pill to swallow.

I have heard from a great many people who were outraged by the results of the meeting and are watching this situation closely to see what it means to the future of urban development in HRM. The truth is, core areas of our city are clearly in decline and have been for a long time. With so many young people needing a real future in this region and so many older ones needing quality living options, rational development and growth will greatly determine our ability to turn potential into prosperity.

I've decided to take this project to the next level and have filed an appeal with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB). We were recently notified of the date of the hearing, and I am once again asking for your support. I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to use every means at our disposal to make the changes that are necessary for sustainable growth.

Please dedicate a small amount of your time to attend the public speaking session on Monday, May 7th at 6:30 pm.
You are required to submit notice of your intention to speak to the URAB in writing (email or fax) no later than Monday March 5th. You can also submit a written response by Monday March 19th (details for both in the attached document.) Also, please let me know if you are planning to participate in this process, so I can keep you informed as we go forward.

Our strong list of supporters demonstrates that a growing number of residents in HRM understand the broad benefits of increasing urban density in the city core, creating attractive residential buildings in smart mixed-use communities and the impact this will have on the future prosperity of our region.

Our application to the UARB is giving residents the opportunity to participate in an open, unbiased process - the very same process they were denied by three members of community council. Your attendance at the May 7th hearing would help to send a strong message that such actions should not be tolerated. Please lend your voice to this effort.

Thanks, Tony"

I really hope some of us can make it out to the meeting, if not please at least e-mail the UARB and show your support like Tony asks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2012, 5:29 PM
Upwords Upwords is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 5
I'm sending out a strong plea to anyone who can support this development by submitting a written response to the UARB. I live a block from the site - it's GOOD for the community for many, many reasons, most of which have been discussed here. I thank you for that, but I'm hoping some of you will put your words where they can count most - in a letter to the UARB.

The deadline is Monday, March 19. The email address is board@gov.ns.ca
The Case # is: M04790.

If you want help with the letter, you can count on me (no charge). I write for a living - I'm a former journalist and political speech writer, now a communications consultant. Just send me a personal message and we'll chat from there.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted May 8, 2012, 11:59 AM
kojak23 kojak23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4
has anyone attended the uarb hearing that has been going on for this project the last two days? looks like today is the last night for it.
any feedback as to how it is going
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2012, 4:45 AM
Jringe01's Avatar
Jringe01 Jringe01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 175
So...anyone have an update on this? Crossing my fingers that he wins his appeal and that in the end it gets built. :-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2012, 2:05 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,678
Still showing as pending on the UARB website.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2012, 3:02 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jringe01 View Post
So...anyone have an update on this? Crossing my fingers that he wins his appeal and that in the end it gets built. :-)

The hearing was scheduled for May 4th and May 7th. I looked up the case number (M04790) on the NSUARB site; here is the link - http://www.nsuarb.ca/index.php?optio...d=73&Itemid=82 (just enter M04790 and click on the link)

No decision is posted but the post-hearing submissions are posted for an Intervenor, the HRM and Appellant (Monaco Investments Partnership). Also pre-hearing letters both in favour and against are posted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2012, 11:42 PM
Jringe01's Avatar
Jringe01 Jringe01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
The hearing was scheduled for May 4th and May 7th. I looked up the case number (M04790) on the NSUARB site; here is the link - http://www.nsuarb.ca/index.php?optio...d=73&Itemid=82 (just enter M04790 and click on the link)

No decision is posted but the post-hearing submissions are posted for an Intervenor, the HRM and Appellant (Monaco Investments Partnership). Also pre-hearing letters both in favour and against are posted.
Thanks Fenwick. :-)
Hopin and prayin that he wins this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2012, 12:21 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Still shows pending...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2012, 5:26 PM
RaphEmer RaphEmer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
According to Haligonia.ca, the appeal has been turned down:

http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/...ity-group.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2012, 5:31 PM
cormiermax's Avatar
cormiermax cormiermax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Beijing
Posts: 884
Simply retarded. One step forward two steps back.
__________________
http://v2studio.ca/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2012, 7:13 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I wonder if there will still be people scratching their heads over why the city isn't hitting its targets for increased density in the regional core. Inner Dartmouth in particular has a lot of obvious signs of decay related to low population density.

When somebody considers a 70 foot setback between a house and small highrise insufficient you have to wonder what sort of workable solution they'd be happy with. In my condo building there was some lady a while ago who had trouble sleeping so she wanted to ban turning any taps on or showering after 10 p.m. Thankfully in that instance her bloated sense of entitlement was tempered by the condo's legal advisor. It turns out you can't legally tell people they can't shower in their own home. Turns out that in Dartmouth you can prevent them from building just about anything though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2012, 10:50 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
This is a step in the process - not the best step, but a step. There is still the possibility of a legal challenge (which I suspect might happen).

That said - wasn't this area identified in the HRM Regional Centre Plan? If so, it might be in their interest to wait and see what comes of that. While they may not get as much height as they had hoped - they could get something out of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2012, 11:55 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Utter lunacy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2012, 2:03 AM
Jringe01's Avatar
Jringe01 Jringe01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaphEmer View Post
According to Haligonia.ca, the appeal has been turned down:

http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/...ity-group.html

Oh my F***...after 25 mins I gave up, I can't read all that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2012, 12:43 PM
kwajo's Avatar
kwajo kwajo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Uptown, Saint John
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jringe01 View Post
Oh my F***...after 25 mins I gave up, I can't read all that
I agree, I was particularly impressed by this gem:

Quote:
Traffic is a significant concern. Studies show that critical improvements to metro transit require an increase from 1950’s style densities of 7-10 to a density of 10-15. After a level of density of 10-15 is achieved, there is no dramatic increase in the benefit to metro transit for added density. In fact, once density starts to approach 50 units per acre, then local residents reduce auto use because of traffic concerns. This has a devastating impact to independent living that allows many of the local seniors, with cars, to maintain an active quality of life while still in their own homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2012, 7:36 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwajo View Post
I agree, I was particularly impressed by this gem:



I don't really get the logic / what they are saying here? Are they implying that this development will void the ability of seniors to own cars?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2012, 7:54 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
It's particulary poor logic because those densities apply to neighbourhoods, not individual lots. Realistically, it is undesirable and probably not possible to rebuild all housing to bump up densities to 10-15 units per acre. The way to achieve those moderate densities while minimizing the impact on the neighbourhood is to allow pockets of higher density.

Even if we ignore the faulty premise the senior argument isn't very clear. Who's to say that the driving difficulties aren't more than offset by improved neighbourhood services and amenities that are only viable at higher densities? What about all the seniors who can't drive anymore?
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 6:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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