HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


    Skye Halifax I in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2011, 3:48 PM
Northend Nerd's Avatar
Northend Nerd Northend Nerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax
Posts: 66
This article was put on their website today, indicating that they are hoping to have construction starting by the end of next year. The website/twitter/fb has been pretty quiet recently so hopefully he can keep the info coming to build more support.

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/med...s%20online.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2011, 4:33 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,883
The article really downplays the whole issue of approval. I don't think rules like the ramparts bylaw are as sacrosanct as the Heritage Trust et al. would like us to believe, but it is far from guaranteed that this development will be permitted to proceed by council. And even if it's approved I'm not sure how confident I am that the buildings would actually be constructed.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2011, 4:53 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The article really downplays the whole issue of approval. I don't think rules like the ramparts bylaw are as sacrosanct as the Heritage Trust et al. would like us to believe, but it is far from guaranteed that this development will be permitted to proceed by council. And even if it's approved I'm not sure how confident I am that the buildings would actually be constructed.
I have no faith in them at all. Their track record on this site is, frankly, horrible. Their level of confidence in that article is border line arrogant and I'm at a level of frustration with this site that I'm almost on board with Councillor Sloane to say the hell with anything, let it fall back to HbD.

My frustration is also with the fact they make these claims, yet there isn't even a planning application case yet. Serious guys, shi* or get off the pot already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 12:10 AM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Fake project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 1:14 AM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Fake project.
Exactly how I feel at the moment. With this track record, the block will probably remain empty for years to come. It's a shame, because we could have already had a fantastic development U/C on the site today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 1:36 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
The developer should be required to post a non-refundable surity for at least 100,000 given that this is the second questionable proposal. How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 2:19 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
The developer should be required to post a non-refundable surity for at least 100,000 given that this is the second questionable proposal. How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?
The problem is that the original selling process was wrong. The correct way to do this is a conditional sale that requires a developer to proceed within a certain limited time frame. If they don't proceed, ownership reverts to the city and the purchasing price of the lot is refunded (minus a deposit). I believe this is what is happening with Clyde Street and I expect that the lots will be developed quickly.

The same procedure would also have been better for Salter. Hopefully the WDCL will be better about the Cunard site. And hopefully they'll develop it soon -- it's been a while since they released conceptual plans. Time to get something started on the waterfront. There's no good excuse for those prime lots to sit empty when less desirable lots nearby (Vic) are being successfully developed.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 3:24 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?
Through signatures online, and through political hope that the HRM may want to try something dramatically different for the downtown, given this economic golden age the city may soon experience. With its architectural nod to history this project is hoping to gain enough support for special approval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 3:50 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 3:57 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,883
I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 4:07 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.
I was also trying to figure out how Shangri-La was built under 300ft.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 4:12 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,694
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Shangri-La

Sounds like another one of those classic "Heritage Trust/Save the view" make up your own facts statement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 4:14 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.
And guests at the VANCOUVER | Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel | 460 FT / 140 M | 44 FLOORS would also be shocked.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 4:45 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,883
It is also interesting to note a bit of the history in Vancouver's case. Ostensibly the view cones exist to protect mountain views. This makes sense until you wonder which views they're designed to protect. There are tons of public mountain views all around Vancouver that are at no risk of being blocked. The reason for the specific restrictions downtown are that some residents in a small neighbourhood nearby (Fairview slopes) were upset. These people were never previously guaranteed views as far as I know and there are fewer of them than there are residents in higher-density downtown infill buildings.

In any case, Vancouver's been loosening up the restrictions in specific areas, allowing buildings like Shangri-La and perhaps some other towers, like a large proposal near the downtown end of the Burrard Bridge. The sky has yet to fall.

Like I said I am far from convinced that the developer will build this but I have yet to hear a good argument against approving 47-storey buildings downtown. The "little old Halifax" arguments are extremely parochial in that they ignore the fact that building 47-storey structures is not actually technically difficult or particularly expensive. This is not a proposal to build reconstruct the pyramids. It is just another condo development. The only supposed reasons why this is "impossible" in Halifax are artificial and basically related to hand-wringing over the possibility of offending the sensibilities of small and historically ineffective special interest groups like STV.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 6:00 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen
That's totally inaccurate.
There are site specific height requirements throughout the downtown area, that vary based on policy.

Just going through the Downtown Zoning Bylaw, map 3, area 8 is capped at a maximum height of 137.2 metres, which is 450 feet. The dark areas on the map, which I believe includes Shangri-la, is outside of the downtown zoning (it's a special site specific zoning, much like a development agreement or a Direct Control District here in Calgary).

I don't believe the pacific rim falls into the downtown plan, it may be covered under the harbourfront or Coal Harbour plan. But I should point out that for the Pacific Rim; it was amended and it's height reduced. This is taken from the first post in the Pacific Rim thread:

"Originally proposed with maximum height of 472 feet and re-submitted at 463.72 feet, the city only approved to 458.25 feet, including all building appurtenances."

Last edited by halifaxboyns; Oct 13, 2011 at 7:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 9:16 PM
-Harlington-'s Avatar
-Harlington- -Harlington- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Halifax-Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,097
As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 11:44 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Okay okay, keep your pants on.

I APOLOGIZE.

I read this article in a San Francisco newspapers website and took it for universal fact.... on a re-read I guess they are talking about certain areas (South Downtown or whatever) not every area. I guess it would be right to say "some" or "many areas have a 300 foot height limit" but not "most".

Still and all, it is a good article.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-06-1...downtown-south
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2011, 12:28 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Harlington- View Post
As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol
Well, some economist friends of mine did some math when we talked about it. Typically with 'spin off' jobs, you can either get 2 to 3 from one full time job. So if 25,000 jobs are created with the major contract over 25 years you could see the whole contract create between 75 to 100k jobs (50 to 75,000 service sector type jobs).

To put that into a population perspective; if I remember my demographic calculations correctly from school 1 job typically creates a population increase ranging between 1 to 2.5. So taking the range into account and the economist numbers, you could see between 75,000 to 250,000 in population increase from the contract over it's 25 year life. So, taking 2010 population - it would see HRM jump to between 478,101 to 653,101 over 25 years.

Those numbers also don't take into account the potential for other sectors of the economy to see the contract and spin offs and decide that now is the time to spend $ to expand, thus creating even more full time jobs (and spin off jobs). So the contract could be the main event, but then could snow ball in job creation if other sectors jump on board with job creation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2011, 1:58 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waye Mason View Post
Wow, this article is really old...2003. Larry hasn't worked for the City of Vancouver since I'd say roughly 2005? Maybe 2006 - he's working in Abu Dhabi now.

It's Brent Toderian who is now in charge of Vancouver's Planning. I know he worked out here in Calgary and knew Larry. I've met Larry twice at a conference, good guy.

Brent has a blog.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2011, 3:41 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Harlington- View Post
As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol
I'm trying to be optimistic, as well.

I also wonder about how many people think that this proposal gaining approval would be, in a way, opening pandora's box. I wonder if people think height restrictions would be thrown out the window; after all, if Skye can build something this tall, why not others?

Halifax has a unique low-lying skyline, which I love. I support the height restrictions.

I also believe this skinny, sleek exception flatters the existing skyline. This would not be the case if the previously approved twisted sisters were this tall.
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 5:53 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.