HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

    The Trillium on South Park in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 6:13 PM
citiguy citiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 15
[Halifax] The Trillium l 65 m l 19 fl l Completed

Proposed development agreement by WM Fares for a 19 storey mixed development on the Corner of South Park Street and Brenton Place (Clyde Street).

Check out the proposal below:

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...1023ca1013.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 6:34 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 587
Exciting! Nice design...but does anyone know if it fits in with the MPS? I thought there were now strict height limits of 80 feet or something for new developments south of the Citadel. Not sure about this though, and clearly it fits in with the surrounding development.

Also this is close to the Pacey's neighbourhood, and part of the HRM-by-design's Spring Gdn and Queen St zone, so expect a tough fight.

Opponents of development have been trying to use the HRM-by-design exercise as a stalling technique. The "lets not build anything until the design committee finalizes their plans" approach, knowing full well that they won't agree with plans that permit mid/hi-rise development anywhere anyways. Epstein tried that argument against the UG towers when he suggested the city must now buy back the land from the developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 7:01 PM
skyscraper_1's Avatar
skyscraper_1 skyscraper_1 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Halifax
Posts: 864
Quite interesting!
__________________
Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.

"I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world." - Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 7:13 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
I don't think that the heritage trust should have any say in this. There needs to be a pro-development group to counter these wackjobs, who haven't managed to actually protect much real heritage.

This project looks great for the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 8:39 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
Exciting! Nice design...but does anyone know if it fits in with the MPS? I thought there were now strict height limits of 80 feet or something for new developments south of the Citadel. Not sure about this though, and clearly it fits in with the surrounding development.
Well, this would be news to me. The Martello and Paramount went up with ease and their far taller than 80 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 8:40 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,047
WOW! Very nice. I had no idea anything was in the works for that area. It looks like it has some very nice detailing. I hope this gets through council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 9:07 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 1,277
1. Halifax MPS and LUB Context
The site is in the ResidentialCommercial
Mix District and the RC2
Zone. This application
would require Council to consider creating policies that would be different from many of the
current Municipal Planning Strategy policies and Land Use Bylaw requirements that apply
to this District and Zone for this area. At this time:
Under the Land Use Bylaw, in the RC2
Zone:
• Commercial uses are only permitted at or below grade.
• Residential uses are limited to houses containing a maximum of four dwelling units
and townhouses.
• The maximum height of buildings is 45 feet.
Further to the Municipal Planning Strategy:
• There are development agreement provisions which allow Council to consider
buildings that are greater than 45 feet in height in the ResidentialCommercial
Mix
District, but only upon the “Clyde Street Parking Lots.”
• There are planning policies that cite a concern with the height of buildings facing
Victoria Park and the Public Gardens, which results in height controls within the C2D
Zone. Such concerns are relevant to this application as the site directly faces Victoria
Park.



Well, that basically answers the MPS question. I'm not sure how its going to turn out. Hopefully it'll end well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 9:48 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishblade View Post
• Commercial uses are only permitted at or below grade.
• Residential uses are limited to houses containing a maximum of four dwelling units
and townhouses.
• The maximum height of buildings is 45 feet.
Further to the Municipal Planning Strategy:
• There are development agreement provisions which allow Council to consider
buildings that are greater than 45 feet in height in the ResidentialCommercial
Mix
District, but only upon the “Clyde Street Parking Lots.”
• There are planning policies that cite a concern with the height of buildings facing
Victoria Park and the Public Gardens, which results in height controls within the C2D
Zone. Such concerns are relevant to this application as the site directly faces Victoria
Park.
Yikes! I was afraid of something like that. Not to be a pessimist, but I suspect this one is dead before it starts. Especially with that bit about Victoria Park and Public Gardens... The Heritage Nazis will be salivating over this. In the very least it will get bogged down in years of appeals, so don't expect anything until 2011 or so.

As for the Martello and Paramount buildings, they fell into the same strange gray area that the so-called "triangle lands" and Trademart near Cogswell. They all received council approval for their respective developments in the 1980's. They've just been sitting on the shelf for those many years, waiting for the developer to submit detailed plans and break ground. This is an oddly run city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 9:57 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Well, the power of said Heritage Groups is what scares me... we elect individuals to make decisions.

What incentives to developers have to even bother with downtown?

Honestly, if approval is the problem, maybe the focus of growth should be in other areas of the city, where nature can takes its course and buildings can be taller than what a counsellor or a heritage freak dictate. I think Young and Robie area would be a really good area to completely redevelop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 10:54 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,633
I think this one actually has a good chance of being approved. It is on South Park Street, which already has a row of large buildings such as the Paramount, Lord Nelson, that white/concrete one, and Park Victoria. It does overshadow some adjacent blocks but those are mostly the empty parking lots.

As far as the development itself, it's exactly what that area needs. That end of the block has a couple of houses that are nice but kind of out of place and are encircled by unsightly parking lots.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2007, 11:35 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,329
That would be an amazing addition to that neighborhood -- I would love to live there! Only downside I see is that the Cellar and Curry Village would be no more.

Having said that, I expect we will hear cries of outrage from the usual suspects and a desire to saw off several floors because "it's too tall!!!".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 8:46 AM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Well, if Spring Garden is to be the "Fifth Ave" so to speak of Halifax, they really have to do something fast. Adding this building would definitely help businesses along the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 3:17 PM
skyscraper_1's Avatar
skyscraper_1 skyscraper_1 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Halifax
Posts: 864
Council to mull South Park tower print this article
STÉPHANE MASSINON

A proposed 19-storey, $30-million tower will go before Halifax regional council today.

The building - which is slated to feature 80 condos, two floors of commercial space and two floors of underground parking at South Park Street and Brenton Place - still needs to be approved by council at a later date.

Developer Wadih Fares, president of WM Fares Group, said the project represents the largest single building the company has done in Halifax.

"We're excited about it, and I hope that the remainder of the process will be short and we can get going and under construction by the spring of 2008," Fares said.

WM Fares is currently developing the Mount Royale neighbourhood off Dunbrack Street.

If it goes ahead at council today, there will be opportunity for public input.

Downtown Halifax Coun. Dawn Sloane couldn't say much about the project.

"I want it to go to a public hearing so we can get comments from the public," Sloane said.

"There's two old houses and they're falling to ruin; it's right there," she said of the location.

Fares said the project has been formulated with city staff for a year-and-a-half.

"I don't mind the process to go through what you go through. It takes longer than it really should. However, it's good for us; it's good for the city," Fares said.

In a report to councillors, city staff members say the proposal fits with the city's plans for the area.

"The building relates well to the early principles that have been expressed through the HRM by Design study," the report reads.

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=73675&sc=89
__________________
Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.

"I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world." - Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 5:22 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
I would put money on them not starting construction in "spring 2008".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 7:27 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 1,277
A slightly better article:


19-storey building proposal unveiled

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Tue. Oct 23 - 6:16 AM

A new 19-storey building is proposed for the Spring Garden Road area in Halifax but it’s been kept well under wraps.

"Surprise!" Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) joked Monday when asked about the development at the corner of South Park and Brenton streets.

The councillor has known about the mixed residential/commercial/office building for a while, but only because a previous design was tried out about a year ago. The earlier proposal for the lot didn’t make it past the downtown planning advisory committee, the group that advises council on proposed downtown developments.

"This is their second kick at the can, I guess you’d say," she said in an interview.

An engineer with W.M. Fares Group said Monday that plans for the building have been in the works for some time.

"We’ve been working on it for a while," Cesar Saleh admitted Monday. "But the reason no one has heard about it publicly is because this is the first step of the public process."

That first step will include council being asked tonight to make changes to planning strategies and land-use bylaws to allow the proposal to go ahead.

Height regulations now limit buildings to 13.5 metres and residential uses are restricted to houses, containing a maximum of four dwelling units, and townhouses.

The proposed building goes higher than the permitted 13.5 metres and features a tower measuring 18 by roughly 43 metres. However, the tower is stepped back about 4.6 metres from the commercial level on the first floor.

Doing the design this way provides a maximum "street line" of nearly eight to nearly 11 metres, Mr. Saleh wrote in a recent letter to the city.

Overall, the residential building would range in height from 13 to 19 storeys and accommodate 80 residential suites. It would also include general commercial on the first floor, offices on the second, and two levels of underground parking accessed from Brenton Place.

In order for council to approve the building, says a staff report, it must first consider creating policies that would differ from many of the planning strategies and land-use bylaws in place for the area. But the staff report says that "many of the objectives expressed with the community municipal planning strategy, such as limiting the impact upon Victoria Park, can be achieved through the building’s design."

Mr. Saleh said it’s necessary to go through the amendment process "because sometimes the policy might be outdated or certain circumstances have changed."

"Especially now, with the HRM By Design, there is a need for both office/commercial and residential space downtown and the city is looking to bring people back into the regional centre to live, where the infrastructure is already (in place)."

If council does consider amending its planning strategy, the public will still have a say. The downtown planning advisory committee will host a future public information meeting, Ms. Sloane said.

She is withholding her own views until then. "I want to hear from the public," she said.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/973892.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 9:48 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I would put money on them not starting construction in "spring 2008".
Ha ha! I'm in for 20 bucks too... only problem is, who's going to take our bets?

Leave it to the lovely Ms. Sloane to wait to make a comment until she hears which direction the wind is blowing.

I'm also unsure of what they mean in that last article about the tower measuring 18 by 43 metres. Are they talking about height?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 2:43 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,047
Just wondering if anyone happened to see council tonight? This proposal was suppose to have been presented for preliminary debate, and policy amendments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:08 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,633
Height regulations now limit buildings to 13.5 metres and residential uses are restricted to houses, containing a maximum of four dwelling units, and townhouses.

It kind of annoys me when they put this in Herald articles. That limit is not a real height limit, it's simply a threshold beyond which new developments are deemed significant enough to warrant public consultation.

I think the 18x43 m thing means 18 "deep" (along Brenton Pl) and 43 m along South Park Street. A 19 storey residential building would be in the 50-60 m range for height.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 1:35 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Any news from council on this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 7:39 PM
Halifax Hillbilly Halifax Hillbilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 708
Interesting development. I like the height, the location, and lots of interest at street level. The overall design is ok, but man that top is AWFUL. That really brings things down a notch or two or my opinion.

There are lots of proposed projects coming up lately. Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of peninsula development?
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 > SSP: Local Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.