United Gulf towers | ~90m | 27 fl | Approved

[Empire]

Originally Posted by burtj

Ooo. Really like this - very chilled buildings

I do like the narrow towers and it should be emphasized over and over that with this design there will be more harbour view..................

[haligonia]

I do hope that UG is still serious about actually developping the site, be it with this proposal or anything else. But something tells me they're not.

[ScovaNotian]

CTV ATLANTIC

The slope in the upper floor plates is an interesting feature. Of course, you'd have to bolt down your furniture ...

[q12]

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Ar...-July-21st2011

Rick's Rants
[Blogue Professionel] Rick's Rants Thursday July 21st/2011

Twin 48 storey towers?? You're kidding, right? and NSP taketh, but the URB giveth back!!
What is Navid Saberi thinking? His United Gulf Developments Ltd has apparently given up on its proposed Twisted Sisters project on the former Tex Park site downtown and instead now proposes to build what its calling Skye Halifax, two 48-storey towers. It would include retail shops and restaurants at ground level, a 3 or 4 storey hotel and the rest would be condominiums. I'm not against development, in fact I kind of liked the Twisted Sisters. But this project goes way beyond what fits in downtown Halifax, a downtown with character and history. Not only that, but it wouldn't be allowed under the new HRM By Design framework and would require wholesale changes to HRM's municipal plan. Go back to the drawing board Mr Saberi or give it up completely and allow some other developer with a sense of the city's heritage to put something up on the site.

"I'm not against development......... oh wait I am...."

[worldlyhaligonian]

Empire - The hating on glass building aspect of HRMBD comes from anti-development groups and so called "consultants" who stated Halifax shouldn't have any glass buildings. Its one of those things in the planning that makes me think the HT pulled a fast one here on saying they didn't like HRMBD... reduced heights in most areas and no glass... sounds right up their alley.

Does anybody think Saberi is using these 48 story proposals as a strategy to get the DA back for the Twisted Sisters? Didn't that news story just say there is a stipulation that there is an option to build the original proposal if the 48 story towers aren't approved?

[someone123]

Well, Rick at least was right about the title -- it's an incoherent rant. How does building a 48 storey tower on an empty lot detract from the area's character and history? How is it worse than a wider 27 storey tower? He hasn't explained anything or demonstrated in any way that this isn't just his personal taste. I don't personally like obnoxious radio personalities. Should the government shut them down too?

If I had to bet on this I would guess that these towers will never be built, but I'm not sure they're infeasible. 48 storeys sounds like a lot but it is not technically challenging and is not dramatically higher than Fenwick or the 31 storey tower proposed for King's Wharf. The towers are also quite narrow, so they won't have a ton of units, and because there are two they can be built in phases.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Saberi hasn't even built phase 2 of the Waterton yet... and I haven't even seen a crane.

[RyeJay]

Oh my, my... United Gulf. Me thinks you're pushing your luck. Your former proposal was controversial enough--and yet you got your way and received APPROVAL. And you did nothing...

This new proposal is an even bigger slap in the face to the heritage crowd.

Does anyone else find it odd how there (might) be this very tall development within a sea of low-rise buildings? Perhaps we should now add height to all existing buildings? Afterall, they're already there...and we won't be blocking the view of the harbour anymore. Looking at these two tall, skinny towers, tourists may wonder what they heck we're doing with our height restriction laws...or at least may feel the urge to kick a field goal.

It's so unfortunate that the former proposal did not get built.

I wonder if United Gulf is willing to compromise on the height...maybe combine the two tall towers into a shorter single tower. They can still fly with their 'sail in the wind' concept.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think the HRMxD policy of less glass in building design is misguided if not dead wrong. Glass buildings tend to fit in great in any skyline. Glass reflects the sky, light, water other buildings etc. adding to the diversity of the skyline and blending into the surroundings. Just another example of bad planning policy.

I think it is fine in the context of the rest of the rules. Obviously the HRMBD design criteria don't cover a 48 story building design adequately since it just isn't allowed under HRMbD.

I'm against this proposal. I am for the HRMbD height limits on that site.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I think it is fine in the context of the rest of the rules. Obviously the HRMBD design criteria don't cover a 48 story building design adequately since it just isn't allowed under HRMbD.

I'm against this proposal. I am for the HRMbD height limits on that site.

Why do you think it is bad? For that matter, why would HRMbD not allow anything this tall? I am curious. On the surface it makes no sense for such arbitrary limits if someone wants to build it.

[fenwick16]

One thing that bothers me regarding HRM_by_Design is that there was already a development agreement with United Gulf for ramparts maximum of about 90 m at that site. The development agreement with United Gulf received overwhelming support from the HRM Council. But for some inexplicable reason, the people behind HRM_by_Design reduced the height limit at that location to 66 m post-bonus height (i.e. maximum height). Things such as this, make me believe that HRM_by_Design was more in favour of the vocal minority than the democratic majority. For that reason, every time the height limits in HRM_by_Design are surpassed I feel like standing up and cheering; it is time for politicians in the HRM to start listening to the majority instead of the vocal minority.

As far as building twin towers of 48 stories is concerned, I would just as well see the development spread out through the downtown core. I would rather see five 19 story towers than two 48 story towers. Having lived close to Toronto for so long, I am no longer impressed by height alone; I would much rather see more vacant lots developed, and this proposal will probably not achieve that (since it likely won't be approved by Council or even get through NSUARB).

[pblaauw]

Putting up a website is pocket change compared to a building that costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

They can put up another MetroPark for all I care, as long as they do something soon.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

One thing that bothers me regarding HRM_by_Design is that there was already a development agreement with United Gulf for ramparts maximum of about 90 m at that site. The development agreement with United Gulf received overwhelming support from the HRM Council. But for some inexplicable reason, the people behind HRM_by_Design reduced the height limit at that location to 66 m post-bonus height (i.e. maximum height). Things such as this, make me believe that HRM_by_Design was more in favour of the vocal minority than the democratic majority. For that reason, every time the height limits in HRM_by_Design are surpassed I feel like standing up and cheering; it is time for politicians in the HRM to start listening to the majority instead of the vocal minority.

As far as building twin towers of 48 stories is concerned, I would just as well see the development spread out through the downtown core. I would rather see five 19 story towers than two 48 story towers. Having lived close to Toronto for so long, I am no longer impressed by height alone; I would much rather see more vacant lots developed, and this proposal will probably not achieve that (since it likely won't be approved by Council or even get through NSUARB).

The development agreement in place was for a specific proposal - doesn't make sense that once approval for one thing is given, anything else goes on that site. It would take a lot more than for someone to say: "oh but they're both tall" for me to be able to take that logical leap.

HRMbyDesign was not about codifying what the majority of Haligonians felt would be suitable and then calling that a plan. The height limits and other guidelines are supposed to work together (can't say if they're successful yet, only one project has started work under the rules). Just because something was proposed before the guidelines were developed does not mean that it automatically fits within those guidelines.

I, for one, was happy when this project was given the go-ahead.

I am also hopeful for the results of HRMbyDesign.

I don't necessarily think they're one and the same, and if the Twisted Sisters do not go ahead, I feel like something that follows the rules of HRMbyDesign has just as much chance to be a successful addition to downtown.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The development agreement in place was for a specific proposal - doesn't make sense that once approval for one thing is given, anything else goes on that site. It would take a lot more than for someone to say: "oh but they're both tall" for me to be able to take that logical leap.

HRMbyDesign was not about codifying what the majority of Haligonians felt would be suitable and then calling that a plan. The height limits and other guidelines are supposed to work together (can't say if they're successful yet, only one project has started work under the rules). Just because something was proposed before the guidelines were developed does not mean that it automatically fits within those guidelines.

I, for one, was happy when this project was given the go-ahead.

I am also hopeful for the results of HRMbyDesign.

I don't necessarily think they're one and the same, and if the Twisted Sisters do not go ahead, I feel like something that follows the rules of HRMbyDesign has just as much chance to be a successful addition to downtown.

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?

[Keith P.]

There are many problems with HRMbyDesign and the view that since it was passed by council that it should never be changed is simply wrong. Council was desperate for anything that they felt would get them out of the hole they were in regarding lengthy debate of every proposed building through HRM's onerous and ridiculous public hearing process. They believed HRMbD was the panacea, sold to them by a group of urban planners who looked on this as a job of a lifetime, like those who got to plan for the development of Brasilia way back when.

The problem with it is that it was never tested by economic reality. To place arbitrary limits on things like (but not exclusively) height means that the range of potential options for a given site is severely limited. If the numbers don't make sense, then HRMbD will be just another municipal document that inhibits economic growth and development of the downtown in the name of planning. My view is that it is far too specific and limiting in many areas, not just height, and that it will result in fewer developments in the downtown and more suburban growth.

[Empire]

I guess the idea that through HRMxD the development process will be clear and that everyone will know exactly what can be built has been severly challanged.

Have height limits been successfully challenged in places like Ottawa and Montreal. What is the motive of U/G? If they have spent so much money to date getting the Twisted Sisters approved against all odds why throw that opportunity out the window. If they lose this battle and it is a 98% given that they will, and the current development agreement doesn't get renewed then they could spend 3 -4 million on a lot that is worth 2 million?

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

My read is that he is doing this just to make fun of Council. It is not likely that he can get permits, approvals and start building by 2012.

I actually think he is saying "eff you Dawn Sloane".

But I don't think he actual wants to build this.

I have to agree with Waye here. This just doesn't add up from any angle. The design is quick, sloppy and barely inspired -sails.. arms reaching for the skye (sic)- whereas the last design was thoughtful, interesting. Jumping to 48 stories and expecting approval after the trouble he had with 27? It took three years to get approval for his 150$M 27 floor plan, then suddenly the economics were "unfeasible" and the project mouldered for 3 more years and died on the table. Now suddenly 48 floors for 350$M is feasible? I can't believe that he couldn't just change the plans for the two 27 floor buildings to be condos and make it work, without adding 21 floors. Amazing.

I want to believe in this guy, I really do, but remember he was behind the MSVU Motherhouse fiasco and the Waterton troubles too. (Still no Waterton II, BTW)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There are many problems with HRMbyDesign and the view that since it was passed by council that it should never be changed is simply wrong. Council was desperate for anything that they felt would get them out of the hole they were in regarding lengthy debate of every proposed building through HRM's onerous and ridiculous public hearing process. They believed HRMbD was the panacea, sold to them by a group of urban planners who looked on this as a job of a lifetime, like those who got to plan for the development of Brasilia way back when.

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.

[someone123]

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.

That may be true, but I think they also horribly mangled the Turner Drake study about demand for office space downtown. It supposedly averages 50,000 square feet per year, which sounds reasonable. The article, however, implied that this figure covered all development -- office, residential, hotel. That is totally wrong. Stuff like that and comments that "there hasn't been a development downtown in 20 years!" and so forth drive me crazy! There's been tons of very successful residential development in recent years all over the downtown and the peninsula.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

Have height limits been successfully challenged in places like Ottawa and Montreal.

The height limits in Montreal would allow the 48 storey development, so it isn't really a good comparison - http://www.emporis.com/city/100991?n...i_bu&id=100991. Even the Ottawa height limits seem to allow buildings over 100m - http://www.emporis.com/city/101000?n...i_bu&id=101000

Using the height limits in places like Montreal and Ottawa to severely restrict height limits in the Halifax downtown is one more reason that I believe the HRM_by_Design process was flawed. The Halifax downtown has severe height limits whereas Montreal and Ottawa do not.