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

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Problem is that back in 2004 everybody was in "wait and see" mode. Now it's 2011... so far all we've seen is an empty lot.

I'd have to agree.
Plus if he's going for something 'incredible' that's beyond the existing rampart heights - my first sense is danger will robinson, danger! He really had a rough go of getting this through (It was appealed) and trying to go around the rampart heights is well beyond just a simple application. To me; that's a whole policy and visioning exercise that asks the question 'how important is the fort?'.

Personally - I think it's an important part of the city's heritage and I respect it's place and I don't know if I'd like to see the rampart height maximum taken away. Quite the opposite though; i'd like to see is applied to more areas outside of the viewplanes.

I dunno - I'm at a point where I'd rather he just stick with what he got appoved for, or keep it the same height. Anything more falls into my 'i'll believe it when I see it' category. I honestly, don't have much faith in development in downtown lately...

[q12]

Halifax councillor wades into downtown development issue

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1243687.html

By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Tue, May 17 - 7:14 AM

Halifax Coun. Dawn Sloane appears to be aiming to put pressure on the owner of the empty downtown lot that was the site of the Texpark parking garage.

The lot is the proposed site of the 27-storey twin-tower project nicknamed the Twisted Sisters.

Sloane recently indicated she intends to introduce a motion at the June 7 regional council meeting asking council to discharge the November 2007 development agreement between Halifax Regional Municipality and United Gulf Developments Ltd.

It’s not clear if Sloane wants to kill the project or is simply trying to encourage the developer to get on with construction on the controversial project.

Her motion follows on the heels of a recent decision by the Waterfront Development Corp., a provincial government agency, to reclaim the Salter Block after Centennial Group Ltd. requested an extension on its contract to build a hotel, retail and commercial development on the waterfront site.

Presumably, the Waterfront Development Corp. was frustrated by delays in getting the Salter Block development off the ground. Centennial, which is controlled by well-known developer Ralph Medjuck, was awarded the contract to develop the Salter Block in 2004.

But now that the development contract has not been rescinded, the property is still undeveloped and it should take some time before developers will have an opportunity to bid on the property again. So it is not clear what has been gained.

There is also one big difference between the Salter Block and the former Texpark property. The Waterfront Development Corp. controls the Salter Block on behalf of the provincial government, and Navid Saberi’s United Gulf Developments is the owner of the Texpark site.

Saberi, president of United Gulf, didn’t return my call Monday but he has gone on the record to indicate that he is currently tweaking plans for the Twisted Sisters project and still intends to build. The project was first approved in March 2006, and United Gulf’s construction permits lapsed March 21, 2010.

However, the developer simply needs to apply to have new permits issued when United Gulf is ready to build.

The two-tower highrise development at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets would become the third-tallest buildings in Halifax, if and when construction is completed. The original plan called for the north tower to house a 260-suite boutique hotel and the south tower to have 250 condominium units.

Saberi has said he’s not interested in selling the property so cancelling his right to build isn’t going to result in construction starting sooner; in fact, it may prolong the current status as an empty lot.

Hopefully, someone will point that out to the councillor.

Sloane has also indicated she will introduce a motion at the same June 7 council meeting that will ask city staff to create an unusual policy that would require any new big-box retail stores to set up "satellite stores in the capital district for any new big-box stores in any business parks in HRM."

It appears Sloane wants to repopulate downtown Halifax with smaller versions of larger stores currently in Bayers Lake Business Park and elsewhere.

First of all, this is not a communist country. There is no way government should be dictating where companies should set up shop.

While I understand the desire to do something about the woeful state of downtown Halifax, forcing the so-called big-box stores to set up smaller operations in the downtown may actually backfire.

There is little chance of this passing, thankfully, but such a plan has the potential of creating an intensely competitive atmosphere for the small independent operators who already eke out a living downtown, thus driving them out of the downtown.

( rtaylor@herald.ca)

First of all let may say I'm glad Dawn Sloane has been championing a stadium (or has appeared to anyways).

Second, this is not how to encourage retailers to set up shop in the core.

You need residential density i.e. RESIDENTIAL SKYSCRAPERS.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by q12

First of all let may say I'm glad Dawn Sloane has been championing a stadium (or has appeared to anyways).

Second, this is not how to encourage retailers to set up shop in the core.

You need residential density i.e. RESIDENTIAL SKYSCRAPERS.

This is creating an interesting vibe at City Hall in terms of thinking about how we deal with development in the downtown. Personally, I've always believed that there should ways to encourage or push development to be built.

There comes a time where you have to **** or get off the pot, as the saying goes. If the market demand is only residential right now, then maybe this should go more residential?

One thing which they did with the discovery site which I thought was interesting was they really didn't deal with the internal configuration - but the DA would allow either commercial or residential. I'd highly encourage staff to consider that in future DA's for downtown development, this way it gives developers flexibility to respond to the market demands.

[worldlyhaligonian]

They should just put some equipment on site and start prepping the site, I don't see how the DA could be discharged then...

I think they should build the towers as planned and make it all apartments. It would go a long way for downtown and be more sane than condos.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

They should just put some equipment on site and start prepping the site, I don't see how the DA could be discharged then...

I think they should build the towers as planned and make it all apartments. It would go a long way for downtown and be more sane than condos.

Totally agree - the only thing I'd ask for is a non-substantial amendment so the design could include balconies (I live in a condo and I would hate to not have one - which is why I'm not a huge fan of trillium anymore).

But I would keep the hotel component. I think people are under estimating the NS economy and that it will start doing much better as the overall economic picture improves and with the fact that the two adjacent apt towers will create construction jobs and then the potential jobs from Nova Centre and this - it will be economic generators.

So i'd keep the hotel.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I am just hopeful of an extraordinary proposal that is between 20 - 27 storeys. If that is what is meant by "something absolutely unheard of in Halifax" then I am completely in favour.

Lol!! ...ugh Halifax seems so backward when you use quotes like that.

20-27 storeys is something of which I am extremely in favour. It would greatly add to building density downtown; and would look great with the coming Barrington developments.

[halifaxboyns]

Well maybe this means Halifax is growing up? I mean we've all been talking about the extraordinary population growth in recent years and I think we all agree that the Regional Plan is going to exceed the high growth population scenario?

If that's the case, then maybe Halifax is going to be forced to grow up - whether the heritage nimbys like it or not?

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well maybe this means Halifax is growing up? I mean we've all been talking about the extraordinary population growth in recent years and I think we all agree that the Regional Plan is going to exceed the high growth population scenario?

If that's the case, then maybe Halifax is going to be forced to grow up - whether the heritage nimbys like it or not?

This is my hope, as well.

There are numerous economic factors that are forcing growth. Aside from the gradual increase in population, Halifax is investing in the Atlantic Gateway. Soon, commercial harbour traffic will drastically increase (it's currently only operating a 1/3rd capacity). This is forcing us to expand infrastructure to accommodate the ships from China and India. The notion of high-speed rail is something that has also been mentioned, Federally.

Believ'er or not...Halifax is set to boom. We just need to ALLOW it. i.e.: NO MORE SPRAWL.

[musicman]

There is a city in the states that has been forcing big box stores to locate small satalite stores in the core. It has been working well for them... I'm not sure if it was me who mentioned it to dawn or dawn to me but we did have a conversation about it... I'll try and remember which city it was.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

This is my hope, as well.

There are numerous economic factors that are forcing growth. Aside from the gradual increase in population, Halifax is investing in the Atlantic Gateway. Soon, commercial harbour traffic will drastically increase (it's currently only operating a 1/3rd capacity). This is forcing us to expand infrastructure to accommodate the ships from China and India. The notion of high-speed rail is something that has also been mentioned, Federally.

Believ'er or not...Halifax is set to boom. We just need to ALLOW it. i.e.: NO MORE SPRAWL.

Halifax was set to boom 15 years ago. The airport has been a huge boost to the economy and continues to grow. Port traffic has been up and down but the expansion of Halterm for post panamex ships will cement its position globally for good. So much for the silly idea of abandoning the port and building duplexes there. This is a port city and the south end container terminal is iconic. High-speed rail between Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto has very little impact on Halifax. We have now done two studies on LRT and there has been no conclusion. CN panicked after the first study and ripped out the second track from Fairview Cove to Halterm dumping the ball in someone else's court.

Sprawl gets a bit of a bad rap. First of all, the services for the sprawlers that supposedly cost the southenders so much in taxes in most cases doesn't exist. There are no sidewalks, no storm drainage (only mosquito infested ditches), in some cases no paved streets, in some cases no water or sewer and certainly no transit. Furthermore the labyrinth of twisted streets that you see from the air has to be there because these streets were chipped out of bedrock around dozens of lakes so a grid pattern is out of the question.

An efficient highway system is out of the question......look at Hammonds Plains Rd.

[dmac26]

Check out New York City, they have Home Depot downtown, its more of a showroom. Toronto used to have an IKEA satellite store in their downtown too. Not sure if it's still running. It's a novel idea.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

... Furthermore the labyrinth of twisted streets that you see from the air has to be there because these streets were chipped out of bedrock around dozens of lakes so a grid pattern is out of the question.

An efficient highway system is out of the question......look at Hammonds Plains Rd.

Although it is not efficient for mass transportation, I like such a layout. It creates more interesting, cozy neighbourhoods. It slows down traffic which is the reason that cue-de-sac's are so desirable for people with children, and the elderly. I think that such layouts can be arranged so that there are walkways (pedestrian shortcuts) to minimize the distance to bus stops.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Although it is not efficient for mass transportation, I like such a layout. It creates more interesting, cozy neighbourhoods. It slows down traffic which is the reason that cue-de-sac's are so desirable for people with children, and the elderly. I think that such layouts can be arranged so that there are walkways (pedestrian shortcuts) to minimize the distance to bus stops.

I like the layout of the many surrounding communities as well. They are all unique and have various topography issues to deal with. Most are picturesque and are a far cry from the cookie cutter sprawl you see in Toronto or Calgary. I think most of the residents really enjoy the setting and the commute time is accepted as a trade off.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

I like the layout of the many surrounding communities as well. They are all unique and have various topography issues to deal with. Most are picturesque and are a far cry from the cookie cutter sprawl you see in Toronto or Calgary. I think most of the residents really enjoy the setting and the commute time is accepted as a trade off.

That's my opinion also. A grid style layout can become monotonous. Many newer GTA suburban neighbourhoods purposely create such a layout to slow down neighbourhood traffic and make neighbourhoods more livable (Halifax must do it purposely because of the topography). So I think that Halifax should use its topography to its scenic advantage.

[someone123]

A grid is not necessary but you do need good connectivity for pedestrians if you want people to be able to walk or take transit.

I also think that suburban planning a lot to be desired in terms of site layout and densities. These could be improved significantly without serious drawbacks. The suburban areas would be better with local commercial within walking distance for example but this is not feasible given the huge amounts of parking and huge setbacks.

[fenwick16]

There was another story in the allnovascotia.com about Councillor Sloane bringing this before Council Tuesday night to discharge the development agreement. It states that any new development would have to adopt the HRM_by_Design height limit. One mistake in the story is that the HRM_by_Design height limit for that block is stated to be 8 storeys. According to the HRM_by_Design height limits, it would be 51 meters pre-bonus height (about 16 storeys) and 66 meters post-bonus (about 21 - 22 storeys).

Here is the HRM_by_Design post-bonus height limits below. I believe that the United Gulf development is on the south-east corner of Granville and Sackville Streets. The Metro Park, directly adjacent, is in a different height limit zone - 22 meters (post-bonus).

[halifaxboyns]

66 m is correct.

[worldlyhaligonian]

All bad news lately. At least the Trillium got built... I still have my hopes up for Nova Centre, Alexander.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

All bad news lately. At least the Trillium got built... I still have my hopes up for Nova Centre, Alexander.

Just because she puts the motion on the floor doesn't mean it's going to be approved. I'm sure there will be enough opposition to it and I'm sure the developer has been doing some lobbying in the background to ensure the motion fails.

And even if not and the motion passes, I don't think they can discharge the agreement without the consent of the property owner. If they can - well, part of me feels if they didn't actually build it; it's time to sh*t or get off the pot. Sorry, but I'm tired of waiting and if discharging the agreement means that they move forward with something different that has a better chance of being built so be it. I'm at a point where my patience with this site is wearing thin...

[fenwick16]

Did anyone watch the proceedings today at the council meeting? Does anyone know became of the resolution to discharge the development agreement?