HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2012, 2:31 AM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
Is this still on for an October 2012 start?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2012, 9:46 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
I was in to see them last week about an apartment. They are only doing 8 month leases on the upper floors so they can start construction on those suites at that time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2012, 4:35 PM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
There is a Facebook Page called Vision of Fenwick Tower. I have been on that and am told by Joe Metledge, if he doesn't get approval soon, they will lose their start date and have to change it until the spring of 2013. He is hopeful, but doubtful of the city moving on this quickly!

Last edited by teddifax; Sep 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2012, 12:46 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
There is a Facebook Page called Vision of Fenwick Tower. I have been on that and am told by Joe Metledge, if he doesn't get approval soon, they will lose their start date and have to change it until the spring of 2013. He hopeful, but doubtful of the city moving on this quickly!
With some amendments even the provincial government has to give approval.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been quicker to slightly change the design and remove the 1 meter wide feature that was in the viewplane?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2012, 12:37 AM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
Answer back from developer - Joe Metledge

I had asked him what the status was and he replied that they had to do a re-design at a considerable cost over the 3 foot view-plane issue and are still awaiting approval. It never ceases to amaze me the level of bureaucracy (bureaucrazy, more like it) that we have in this city. Whoever has to make the decision, I hope it is soon for Joe's sake (and ours as well).
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2012, 2:04 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
I had asked him what the status was and he replied that they had to do a re-design at a considerable cost over the 3 foot view-plane issue and are still awaiting approval. It never ceases to amaze me the level of bureaucracy (bureaucrazy, more like it) that we have in this city. Whoever has to make the decision, I hope it is soon for Joe's sake (and ours as well).
.
I have a question about this (although the post was from a month ago). I assume they are waiting for the building permits from the municipal planning department(?) Because if it has been redesigned to confirm to the viewplanes bylaws then it shouldn't need an amendment. Also I think that the redesign would have to be quite substantial to require another vote in Council.

I could understand the building permits taking some time with a renovation this size. The city must have engineers and planners who will check the plans to ensure that the design meets the building code and city bylaws. Since this is such a unique job I would think that the permit approval process would be a nerve racking one for city staff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2012, 3:12 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
I had asked him what the status was and he replied that they had to do a re-design at a considerable cost over the 3 foot view-plane issue and are still awaiting approval. It never ceases to amaze me the level of bureaucracy (bureaucrazy, more like it) that we have in this city. Whoever has to make the decision, I hope it is soon for Joe's sake (and ours as well).
.
As a planner (not for HRM) - I have a problem with people complaining about rules. Whether we like them or not, Council has approved rules for development and planners are expected to implement them. Rules like the viewplanes are not subject to variances and there is no wiggle room. You meet it or you don't. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of rules like that - but that's the way it is. So if he didn't meet the rule, then he needed to change his plans. That's the way the rules work.

It could be worse - you think those rules are difficult, try some of the rules out west. They are complex and unbelievable in what are considered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2012, 3:28 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
So if he didn't meet the rule, then he needed to change his plans. That's the way the rules work.
I don't remember the details but I think this was a strange case where the viewplanes were based on "monuments" on the Citadel that were either difficult to find or one way or another were not where they were thought to be. City Hall may not even have known what was going on in this case. If they can't clearly communicate requirements once the developer has given them enough information then there's a problem.

Some rules are necessary but others can be poorly conceived, and all rules have a cost. I think councillors frequently fail to appreciate practical concerns like the ones that tripped up this development when they vote in favour of complicated rules. I also think that some anti-development people deliberately try to craft cumbersome rules that serve as roadblocks for developers. The public and councillors seem to often mistakenly take these at face value or accept distorted reasoning from special interest groups. Before HRM by Design for example it was common for anti-development activists to claim that there was a 40 foot height limit downtown, and that development agreements were attempts to get around the rules when in fact they were always part of the framework.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2012, 4:16 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't remember the details but I think this was a strange case where the viewplanes were based on "monuments" on the Citadel that were either difficult to find or one way or another were not where they were thought to be. City Hall may not even have known what was going on in this case. If they can't clearly communicate requirements once the developer has given them enough information then there's a problem.

Some rules are necessary but others can be poorly conceived, and all rules have a cost. I think councillors frequently fail to appreciate practical concerns like the ones that tripped up this development when they vote in favour of complicated rules. I also think that some anti-development people deliberately try to craft cumbersome rules that serve as roadblocks for developers. The public and councillors seem to often mistakenly take these at face value or accept distorted reasoning from special interest groups. Before HRM by Design for example it was common for anti-development activists to claim that there was a 40 foot height limit downtown, and that development agreements were attempts to get around the rules when in fact they were always part of the framework.
I agree on both points. When a rule is written based upon the placement of a marker or monument, I always get nervous because the monument can be removed or destroyed (accidentally or on purpose) and then what do you do? My feeling with the viewplanes is that in this day and age - if they are going to be retained then they need to be reshot using GPS. This way, the exact coordinate of the viewing point can be determined and then the viewplane angles shot from them and there would be no need for markers.

That said - I didn't agree with Mr. Metledge's view that the viewplanes should've been looked at as part of the regional centre plan initiative. I think it's more of a regional planning issue, because the downtown and the viewplanes are key policies to the RP and the local plans.

My view (pardon the pun) would be that the next time a Regional Plan is done, that be included as part of the review. This way, its an excuse to use the latest technology to shoot them and then perhaps an architecture of GIS firm could be hired to show how changes in the viewplanes would affect the view. For instance DMJ has suggested combining VP9 and 10 - how would that affect the view? What if the height cap wasn't around 8 stories but was more around 10? How would that affect things...and so on. This way people could see pictoral representations and judge for themselves rather than this nonsense of the STV crowd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2012, 5:39 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Yeah, clearly it needs to be done with GPS. Checking whether or not a building conforms should be trivial.

STV have used some dirty tricks in many of their renderings. For example, they sometimes use orthographic projections instead of perspective projections. Those do not reflect the way people see buildings in practice. Sometimes they'll also show a building as a black box when the final product will actually be clad in glass. Developers can counter this by releasing a lot of renderings and information early on. Either they can set the tone of the debate or groups like STV will.

I don't think the viewplanes have captured the tradeoffs of highrise development very well. Few people care directly about how tall buildings are. They fundamentally want attractive streetscapes, lots of natural light, etc. Sometimes the best way to reconcile these different requirements is to allow taller, slenderer buildings, but that is not allowed in Halifax because of the ramparts bylaw. I'm not sure anybody looked at it that way back when it was proposed; they just saw it as a way to cut down what they perceived as ugly buildings. Another detail left out is that the ramparts bylaw is not that old and some existing buildings are visible from within the courtyard. Everything is visible from the ramparts themselves.

Another negative effect of the combination of the ramparts bylaw and viewplanes is that you get shorter buildings up the hill and taller buildings near the water. That's backwards.

It would be nice if Halifax could move toward a model with lots of medium-height buildings and a few sites for slender but much taller buildings (maybe 40+ storeys). This is the model followed in some very historic European cities and it seems to work well. It's a lot more attractive than clumps of stubby buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 8:25 PM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
UPDATE from Joe Metlege!!!

This is from the Vision of Fenwick Tower Facebook Page:
Development permit submission round 3...
Templeton Properties has submitted for the third time completed designs for a development permits. According to the development officer, we should hopefully get the permit in about a week!!
I asked Joe once the permit is received, how long until work is started and this is his answer: We will start prep work with 60 days of receiving all permits, and we should have a crane up on the site in spring of 2013.

This is great news indeed!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 8:36 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Great news... the skyline will be impressive in a few years!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 2:48 AM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,080
From Friday's Chronicle Herald!

Fenwick Towers $150m makeover moves ahead
3 hours ago
By BRETT BUNDALE Business Reporter


















.



.


The multimillion-dollar makeover of Fenwick Place in south-end Halifax is expected to win city approval in the coming days.

Templeton Properties Ltd. submitted the third iteration of the $150-million redevelopment of the city’s tallest building and surrounding property earlier this week.

“I’m led to believe that we should receive the development permit any day now,” vice-president Joe Metlege said in an interview Thursday. “The next step is to get a construction permit.”

After 12 months of delays and $800,000 in cost overruns due in part to the site’s intrusion on view planes from Citadel Hill, the property developer hopes to see a crane on the site next spring.

The project includes a revamp of Fenwick Tower’s 1970s facade and an expansion of the apartment building to 379 units from 275 units.

Templeton Properties also plans to build a new eight-storey building on the west side of the property, a 10-storey building on the east side and townhouses along Fenwick Street.

The completed site will have 520 units and 100,000 square feet of commercial and ground-floor retail space connected by a pedestrian path with shops, services and public art displays.

The redevelopment is expected to employ about 300 workers and take five years to complete.

Recladding the 33-storey Fenwick Tower with curtain glass to give the site an updated, modern look is expected to take three years.

“It’s an extremely complex project because it’s being designed around an existing structure,” Metlege noted.

The third development permit request submitted to city staff includes a number of minor changes, such as where to place a bike rack.

But it also addresses the more complex issue of the site’s encroachment of view planes from Citadel Hill.

“We actually have redesigned that part of the building so the new facade is going to cut into the building and then cut back out so as to not penetrate the view plane,” Metlege said.

The city established view plane legislation in 1974 to maintain the sweeping vista from Citadel Hill to the Halifax harbour.

But the apartment building was constructed in 1970 before the rules came into existence and cut through two points of the building’s 12th floor by about half a foot.

The redesign of the Fenwick Tower facade originally submitted to city staff extended the obstruction by another foot or so.

“It encroached two feet on the 12th floor on the side of the building,” Metlege said.

“There is a view plane that shoots right next to Fenwick Tower and so by putting on the new cladding and creating the architectural flare that had been originally designed, the building was going to get two feet wider so that pushed it into the view plane.”

Despite the drawn-out issue with view planes, the redevelopment of the site is being hailed as an example of urban planning that involves the surrounding community, local businesses and design groups.

Michael von Hausen, president of MVH Urban Planning & Design and an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser



University in British Columbia, aided Templeton Properties with the community engagement process.

“It’s the highest building east of Montreal,” he said in an interview from Vancouver. “It’s a landmark building and an iconic part of Halifax but it really needs visual improvement.”

Von Hausen said the developers worked with the community through various workshops and focus groups to come up with the original concept, which included a number of community amenities.

In addition to 10 per cent of the new units being dedicated as affordable housing units, he said the design includes extra underground parking spaces for community use to reduce street parking congestion.

Von Hausen said he will be using the Fenwick Place redevelopment as an example of how developers can involve the local neighbourhood community in the development process.

(bbundale@herald.ca)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 2:01 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Quote:
“We actually have redesigned that part of the building so the new facade is going to cut into the building and then cut back out so as to not penetrate the view plane,” Metlege said.

The city established view plane legislation in 1974 to maintain the sweeping vista from Citadel Hill to the Halifax harbour.

But the apartment building was constructed in 1970 before the rules came into existence and cut through two points of the building’s 12th floor by about half a foot.
This is nothing short of moronic. The building already encroached on the viewplane, and it's A FOOT OR TWO. Like that matters a lick from the Citadel. Of course the Heritage Trust and Phil Pacey were crowing about the sacred viewplanes, but come on, just issue a minor variance instead of costing the developer hundreds of thousands in the delays. Why can't the viewplanes be varied like every other standard? A better question is why we didn't scrap the viewplanes during HRMbyDesign and come up with something better?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 3:09 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly View Post
Why can't the viewplanes be varied like every other standard?
The viewplane bylaws are written so that you either meet the rule, or you don't. Probably because at the time they were passed, there was incredible pressure to do something to protect an urban fabric many thought was under threat. Given the context of how and when the by-law was passed, I'd say it's unremarkable that these rules are cut-and-dry.

As noted above, the time has probably come to translate them using GPS coordinates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly View Post
A better question is why we didn't scrap the viewplanes during HRMbyDesign and come up with something better?
I seem to recall that the consultants hired, considered the viewplanes to be somewhat of an identifier for Halifax. They considered changing them, but ultimately felt the ideal urban form wouldn't encroach on them anyway. I don't know that significant public pressure could have changed this aspect of HRMbyDesign, but having attended many of the meetings, I can't say that I heard a lot of support for scrapping them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 3:36 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I don't know that significant public pressure could have changed this aspect of HRMbyDesign, but having attended many of the meetings, I can't say that I heard a lot of support for scrapping them.
Revisiting the viewplanes was brought up directly, by myself, at a meeting and the response was it wasn't part of the scope of the project, as dictated by HRM. I feel you're right though, there did not seem to be much public support for scrapping them.

I have come across very few by-laws with provisions written specifically so that they can not be varied, but given the way the height debates have played out in Halifax it's not surprising they were written that way. My problem is not with the idea of protecting some views from the Citadel, it's with the tool. The viewplanes have resulted directly in some very bad design decisions in Halifax: the angle of the Maritime Centre is pretty much a middle-finger to the intent behind the viewplanes; Bishop's Landing and Salter's Gate were both sunk into the ground to sneak in under the viewplane (the results at Salter's Gate are a disaster, Bishop's is only frustrating) and now we've redesigned a building that is already there in order to make no noticeable difference to the view from the Citadel. And the viewplanes do nothing to encourage a cohesive sky-line or good urban form in general. Yet they've become the basis for HRM by Design and a battle-ground for so many inane fights. Add in the economic consequences of making some land in downtown artificially cheap (four floors or bust) and some downtown land artificially expensive (twenty seven floors!!!) and it's bad policy.

The first thing would be to recognize that much of the views have been compromised or ruined (Maritime Centre, Fenwick). Holding on to all of the viewplanes after 40 years of growth doesn't make sense. Decide what views are still worth protecting and balance them versus other priorities. Come up with height standards that are simpler, related to other urban form considerations, and provide some flexibility. Basically do what HRM by Design set out to do without stacking more regulations on top of the viewplanes. Regulate height based on number of floors instead of metres, so developers don't drop their first floor 4 feet to get under an arbitrary height limit. Don't cut blocks and parcels in half with a viewplane, so buildings are contorted just to squeeze up against the viewplane.

It's not rocket science, HRM just needs to do it. There does seem to be a broad, but shallow support, for protecting views from the Citadel. I'm not sure that means there is broad support for the viewplanes specifically. Just because the Heritage Trust loves the viewplanes doesn't make them a good policy. There are better ways to protect the view and allow development, but no one is willing to even open the discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 3:44 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
The 2 foot viewplane thing is emblematic of how slanted and bureaucratic the city's development process is. It's very hard to argue that the cost was justified.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 4:23 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The 2 foot viewplane thing is emblematic of how slanted and bureaucratic the city's development process is. It's very hard to argue that the cost was justified.
As much as I dislike the viewplanes, it should be pointed out that if the viewplanes are specifically written as to not be varied there is nothing that staff can do in the short-term. HRM has to follow policy and is legally required to enforce it's by-laws.

The point is very well made though. The rules seems to be improving, albeit very slowly. The attitude at City Hall, however, doesn't seem to be changing very much.

EDIT: Do we have a City Hall, or do we have a Regional Municipality Hall?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 4:27 PM
Nilan8888 Nilan8888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 199
Someone in Halifax has to apply political pressure to get the entire viewplane issue re-visited. I don't know, maybe that 'fusion' group or someone else, but it really should be revisited at this point to look at the intent of said viewplanes.

Look, the intent of these viewplanes is so that people visiting Citadel Hill get a good view of the harbor when they stand on those ramparts. Ok, I see nothing wrong with that... but let's not govern everything from the standpoint of seeing as much as possible. Seeing a good tall building adds to the experience, it doesn't take away.

It makes sense to have a line of sight to George's Island. It makes sense to have a line of sight to some of the narrows, the bridges, Dartmouth, McNabs Island, and maybe distant glimpses of Bedford.

It does NOT make sense to have a straight line of sight to the oil refinery over at Eastern Passage. That's friggin' stupid: put a building there, it detracts from the view. For the love of Mick, remember what you're looking AT.

It does NOT make sense to have a line of sight over the entirety of Point Pleasant Park (and Fenwick is right in the middle of that view) or the Northwest Arm. At that point, you're looking the wrong way. What are you looking at over there, more distant trees? That's not the draw, the draw is the harbor. Why are you applying viewplanes to the upper portion of Spring Garden at all? You don't need to see anything on the West side of Fenwick -- what's the draw? You went to Citadel hill to see that part of town? Really?

Last edited by Nilan8888; Oct 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2012, 5:02 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilan8888 View Post
It does NOT make sense to have a line of sight over the entirety of Point Pleasant Park (and Fenwick is right in the middle of that view) or the Northwest Arm. At that point, you're looking the wrong way. What are you look at over there, more distant trees? That's not the draw, the draw is the harbor. Why are you applying viewplanes to the upper portion of Spring Garden at all? You don't need to see anything on the West side of Fenwick -- what's the draw? You went to Citadel hill to see that part of town? Really?
The south-end viewplanes (#9 and #10) are aimed past Point Pleasant Park. One look towards McNab's/Lawlor Island and the other looks towards York Redoubt Historic Site. The latter actually theoretically limits the height of buildings in part of Purcell's Cove. The best way to see these are to use ExploreHRM (look-up "ExploreHRM" on drop-down-menu on halifax.ca) and use the layers function to find viewplanes.
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 4:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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