HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2010, 5:03 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfxtradesman View Post
Just a little update; This project is inching along very slowly with some support. But you have the ones that don't like it , like PARKS CANADA, they're complaining about the view plain from Citidal hill and how it will block the area from the view of I don't know what. Isn't there a tax dispute going on here with Canada Parks and Halifax?
I don't think that Parks Canada should have any say in the matter. It would annoy me if they became involved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2010, 5:12 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,661
Sounds like there are HT folks involved in some way or influencing this... hasn't this development been proved to not block anything (due to the Paramount) and only increases shade for like 15 minutes in the Public Gardens?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2010, 7:25 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Usually Parks Canada would be asked to comment given proximity to the fort; since it's federal land. It's similar to the City of Calgary circulating the Airport authority for anything near airport lands.

The block this project is on and the one block heading towards Brunswick Street are the only two blocks in this WHOLE AREA that actually don't get clipped by the viewplanes from the hill. So, I will go back to what I keep repeating over and over (that I've email to the HT several times) - If it's not in the viewplane; it's not a protected view and so STFU.

They didn't protect the whole view and the only thing this application requires is an amendment to the heights for HbD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 1:08 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfxtradesman View Post
Just a little update; This project is inching along very slowly with some support. But you have the ones that don't like it , like PARKS CANADA, they're complaining about the view plain from Citidal hill and how it will block the area from the view of I don't know what. Isn't there a tax dispute going on here with Canada Parks and Halifax?
Well, clearly a problem here. Visitors to the Citadel won't be able to see the side of the Paramount if this proceeds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 1:19 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
The block this project is on and the one block heading towards Brunswick Street are the only two blocks in this WHOLE AREA that actually don't get clipped by the viewplanes from the hill. So, I will go back to what I keep repeating over and over (that I've email to the HT several times) - If it's not in the viewplane; it's not a protected view and so STFU.
There is no point to even have the viewplanes if highrises are prohibited everywhere - clearly the intent in creating the viewplanes was to preserve some views while permitting development elsewhere.

The YMCA proposal is in an area where development should be encouraged. There will still be nice views from the Citadel across to the Public Gardens and the cemetery.

I would like to see the design refined a little but I think this is a great development. Hope it moves forward as quickly as possible, although I'm not holding my breath.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 1:23 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
not sure its a simple as a view plane issue. There is a document if you search for it under the land titles system that requires basically a clear shot (cannon). Therefore its not a view plane restriction as much as a "we can shoot through a building" issue.

Funny as it sounds, do the search. Stupid, rule.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2010, 3:36 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdm View Post
not sure its a simple as a view plane issue. There is a document if you search for it under the land titles system that requires basically a clear shot (cannon). Therefore its not a view plane restriction as much as a "we can shoot through a building" issue.

Funny as it sounds, do the search. Stupid, rule.
This goes back to a wonderful response which the city wrote to the petition from STV that basically said - only the views that were made viewplanes were protected; not everything else.

As for this document on land titles; the city can be forced to follow a document placed on the titles of land around the fort by a different group. That's just like one of the major problems here for urban redevelopment, the wonderful caveat on title. Because Calgary didn't have any development rules until well into 1920; many of the early subdivisions were developed with caveats - which set out the rules to develop the property. Unfortunately, they still remain.

Despite the fact that planning law has evolved; those caveats still remain on title and many disputes over infill single family houses result because of these caveats and they've even gone to court over simple things such as one community (as far as a caveat is concerned) can only be bungalows - where the bylaw allows up to 10m in height. The case law on the whole thing is a mish mash of various decisions - it's crazy.

I'm a little surprised that this document may have come up because Paramount got built - so I wonder if it came up; there were legal threats and the matter was taken to court? The developer may have headed off the issue in the court on their own by petitioning the court to remove the caveat from title? If so - surely the YMCA would be able to do the same. Besides, when are they ever going to need to fire a cannon at the harbour!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2010, 4:36 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,744
Things are moving ahead with this one. They are hoping to go to council for October. I do have it from a good source that the design has been altered somewhat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2010, 5:12 PM
Phalanx Phalanx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 517
Here's hoping for a wider corner tower, and something other than a basketball court at street level on the corner (what a waste of a good corner...)

All-in-all, though, I'm happy to see this one move forward. This, along with the Trillium, and the potential for the DQ corner to get developed will be great for South Park.

Last edited by Phalanx; Aug 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2010, 9:32 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,340
Yeah, it would definitely be better to have a wider corner tower. I'm not sure what purpose the diagonal form serves - it seems like it would block the same views and sunlight as a larger tower built up more along the sides with the same setback that exists on the corner.

I also wish they'd add 5-10 storeys to it. Definitely a case where a taller building would look better, since it's on a large 4 storey podium.

The corner itself is strange because it feels like it is at the "entrance" to the downtown but it's also at the edge of the downtown. This spot gets a decent amount of pedestrian traffic but it's nothing like the south end of the block.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 8:48 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Yeah, it would definitely be better to have a wider corner tower. I'm not sure what purpose the diagonal form serves - it seems like it would block the same views and sunlight as a larger tower built up more along the sides with the same setback that exists on the corner.

I also wish they'd add 5-10 storeys to it. Definitely a case where a taller building would look better, since it's on a large 4 storey podium.

The corner itself is strange because it feels like it is at the "entrance" to the downtown but it's also at the edge of the downtown. This spot gets a decent amount of pedestrian traffic but it's nothing like the south end of the block.
This site is also restricted by the parade square height inside the fort; so I'm wondering if they could add much more too it?

If they could; then I would say yeah go for it - but considering the height amendment needed - who knows how it will go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2010, 12:22 AM
spcushing spcushing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8
There is also the "Public Gardens Protection Act" which limits the type and height of development next to the gardens. Not sure how much more they could add onto this proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2010, 1:10 AM
JustinMacD JustinMacD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by spcushing View Post
There is also the "Public Gardens Protection Act" which limits the type and height of development next to the gardens. Not sure how much more they could add onto this proposal.
What are they protecting exactly? Every progressive city has gardens like this in between skyscrapers and high density buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2010, 5:15 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinMacD View Post
What are they protecting exactly? Every progressive city has gardens like this in between skyscrapers and high density buildings.
If I read the schedule in this act - of areas that it covers: It would cover the blocks including Trillium, Parmount/YMCA and the Park Lane Shopping Centre; it covers the high density block west of the gardens (where the Royal Bank is now) and the high density block south of the gardens (including the private school).

Now; something in the back of my head is saying that this was a temporary piece of legislation. In fact; it says that in the purpose statement section b:
"The purpose of this act is to... (b) protect the Halifax Public Gardens and surrounding area for an interim period to enable the Province to develop provincial land-use policies applicable to the protected area pursuant to the Planning Act. 1991, c. 3, s. 2.".

I'm thinking this act may have been repealled when the planning act was replaced with the MGA? I've got a contact with SNSMR - I'll ask tomorrow. But certainly it wasn't considered with the DA's for Trillium, Parmount and any of the other towers that went up around there...??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2010, 12:32 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,340
Paramount and the Martello were approved back in the 80s, so they would not have been subject to the rule either way.

Garden Crest was a new DA. At one point the developer wanted 19 stories or something similar.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2010, 4:31 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Paramount and the Martello were approved back in the 80s, so they would not have been subject to the rule either way.

Garden Crest was a new DA. At one point the developer wanted 19 stories or something similar.
That's right! Wow, I forgot that. It's funny that there was no mention of it when it came to the Trillium - I went back through the DA and I didn't see anything mentioned about it at all. I'm not sure if it's still in effect, but if it is - you would think that the Province would've stepped in and said something?

When I read the act it keeps talking about an interim period - that was back in 1991 - it's 2010; that's almost 20 years! Surely the interim period is over by now? If not; I'd say there would be a good legal challenge to the act to say that it should be struck. One of my previous manager's always said - there is no such thing as temporary in planning; it's always permanent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2010, 7:17 PM
hfxtradesman hfxtradesman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 84
Alot of really red tape here, this is going to drag on for months too come. There will be new drawings of the buildings coming soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2010, 8:09 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,340
Delays with this one are to be expected. As mentioned, the other two towers on this block are products of the 1980s - had they gone through today they probably either would not have been built or would have ended up slightly stubbier and uglier.

Looking forward to seeing new renderings. This project is a great idea but it would look far better with some modifications. Partly I'd prefer to see a larger tower on the corner but I'm not sure that would happen.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 1:10 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,744
I have seen some of the new massing drawings and will see more later this week. This looks much much better now. Much cleaner looking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 5:00 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
I have seen some of the new massing drawings and will see more later this week. This looks much much better now. Much cleaner looking.
That is fantastic news.

If even half of these developments happen, Halifax is going to be a different looking city...
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 5:34 AM.

     

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