Residents say skyscrapers are OK

[Wishblade]

Interesting little read here. These quotes say it all:

"Only four per cent of the people surveyed believe growth is bad, he told a business luncheon Monday. The majority not only support the idea of growth but believe further investment in the core would have spinoff benefits that would be good for them personally, their community and their neighbourhood."

"Mr. Dempsey said most people are not opposed to tall buildings, but to bad design. He said the survey indicated that the younger the respondents were and the closer they lived to downtown, the more likely they were to support tall buildings. Older people living farther away from downtown were the most opposed to tall buildings."

Heres the article:
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1051360.html

[Dmajackson]

I was reading a similar article in the Metro and it said the people opposed to development were older often retired persons. The city should realize the majority of people do not have time to attend public consultations. These are the majority who want development. Groups like the Heritage Trust have the dominate voice because they are at public consultations instead of helping the local economy. Instead by stopping development they're stalling the economy if not hurting the economy.
http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/42878

[someone123]

Personally I'm not really in favour of tall buildings, I'm in favour of giving developers more flexibility to build whatever fits the market and to be creative. Developers in the past few years have proposed a mix of taller and shorter buildings that are actually a very good fit to the city in most cases. There's an obvious relationship between health of neighbourhoods and how much recent development has occurred - just compare the southern part of Barrington to the downtown part, or look at Spring Garden Road. Spring Garden Road is mostly modern buildings and also happens to be the most successful retail street in the region.

Danny Chedrawe is partly right in that new development is of course limited by demand, but it's not true to say that the amount of construction is directly related to potential demand when the planning regime in the core is so awful compared to the suburbs and other cities.

Even for office space the market is good now but with the Armour Group proposal for example we're seeing a major lag between proposal and construction that is 100% caused by the approval system. Beyond that I'm not even sure that there are many sites available where office buildings are permitted - often commercial use is limited to the lower floors of new buildings.

I think we would see more office development if it were possible to start construction immediately as rents are going up and it takes at least one year to put up a new building.

There's also behind-the-scenes talk of some major office development by the Delta Barrington or Trade Mart that I know next to nothing about but I guess would be undertaken by Crombie/Empire Co. A 20+ storey office tower would absorb demand for several years, explaining why other developers might be hesitant. Anybody know anything about this?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's also behind-the-scenes talk of some major office development by the Delta Barrington or Trade Mart that I know next to nothing about but I guess would be undertaken by Crombie/Empire Co. A 20+ storey office tower would absorb demand for several years, explaining why other developers might be hesitant. Anybody know anything about this?

I believe you are talking about the land between the Delta Barrington and the interchange that is currently used as a parking lot. It's relatively small, so something tall would be the only way to make it viable. It was approved for development pre-amalgamation by the City of Halifax and that approval apparently still holds. I have heard that something of 20+ floors was foreseen but I do not know if there are any plans by Crombie to move ahead.

[Keith P.]

Speaking of tall buildings, can someone enlighten me? Are there any generally accepted definitions for how many floors would constitute (a) a low-rise building, (b) a mid-rise building, and (c) a high-rise building?

I keep hearing a 7-storey building referred to in the media here as a high-rise and I just know that's not correct.

[someone123]

7 storeys was a highrise in Halifax 100 years ago.

On SSP most people consider a highrise 12 floors or more. It's arbitrary of course but even in Halifax there are hundreds of buildings with 7 or more floors, so implying that they're somehow out of the ordinary is just absurd.

The parking lot footprint looks to be about the same as that of 1801 Hollis or the Bank of Montreal.

I really like the idea of an office tower on that site. Right now Granville just trails off to nothing at that end. Granville Mall would look great if the Northern end were opened up into a small plaza at the base of a glass office building.

[hfx_chris]

Capping building heights has been a point of contention for months as the city moves toward approving a development strategy for the downtown. Some developers have complained that restricting building heights to 10 or 12 storeys would destroy the economics of projects and lead to a boring skyline, but heritage groups, principally the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, have argued that the new limits would put 120 heritage properties at risk.

Can somebody please explain to me how allowing a building to be built taller endangers heritage properties? It's not like the footprint is going to be any larger, so it's no more of a danger to heritage buildings than a 5 story building.

[someone123]

The logic is that it would make sense economically to knock down historic buildings to put up highrises but would not make sense to knock them down for lowrise buildings, presumably because the amount of space in a lowrise building wouldn't be much larger. This is of course totally absurd. Short modern buildings mean less demand for things that can fill historic buildings and there are plenty of cases in Halifax where historic buildings have been torn down and replaced by lowrise buildings or nothing at all.

[Keith P.]

For the next 24 hours or so, if you go to http://www.cbc.ca/ns and click on the link to "Watch CBC News At 6" you will be able to see tonight's broadcast where there is a piece on the development battles in Halifax, with interviews with Wadih Fares (he of the South Park & Brenton proposal) and everyone's favorite, Phil Pacey, who spouts the usual lines about how over 100 heritage buildings would be threatened if anything tall were allowed to be built and that heritage buildings are a big reason for people to come here as tourists.

I suggest both his points are totally false.

[BravoZulu]

That's an interesting poll, and it makes me wonder how people would respond if you asked a different question. For example should we continue to protect the view planes from the citadel? I would think the majority of haligonians don't really care, and I don't think it would impact tourism significantly.

Might also give the HT something to keep them busy instead of opposing buildings proposed that comply with all the current regulations.

Thoughts?

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by someone123

Personally I'm not really in favour of tall buildings, I'm in favour of giving developers more flexibility to build whatever fits the market and to be creative. Developers in the past few years have proposed a mix of taller and shor

Exactly. People simplify too much. There is too much ideology and not enough thought. Some say they don't like tall buildings, ever, anywhere. Others say they like tall buildings, anytime, anywhere. That's what bothers me the most... the simplistic thinking. We should look at the whole picture and not be so obsessed with height all the time. That goes for both "sides" of the debate. You need to consider the whole context. The site. The market. Design quality. Etc. That's what irks my about the HT. They oppose all "tall" building everywhere no matter what. Full stop. Pacey doesn't even want tall buildings on the Cogswell lands. He doesn't want them anywhere. That's not based on reality. That's based on ideology. So it becomes a kind of religious war.

[someone123]

I think the heritage buildings and the pedestrian scale of the downtown streets, the Citadel, Public Gardens and other parks and squares, etc. are all really important to the city and to tourism. I don't agree that they'll be harmed by these new towers and I've never heard any plausible arguments from Pacey as to why that would be the case.

In reality I think the opposite is true. On Hollis St for example, Keith Hall will be in much better shape once it's restored and the level of integrity of the streetscape will be much higher when the gaps are filled in. Empty holes tend to completely annihilate the "feel" of a downtown area while towers usually don't matter much since the level of visibility drops off rapidly after the second or third floor. The feel of a downtown street lined with highrises is closer to the feel of downtown Halifax circa 1860 than a strip of parking lots, which is what we have in certain areas.

[someone123]

To illustrate my point, canyon effect with 75+ year old buildings:



Back in 1950 this scene would have been *more enclosed* because of the Custom House and buildings along what was a very narrow Lower Water Street.

[Canopus]

I don't know why people think height as a singular notion is so important to begin with. Manhatten has a few higher buildings I believe as does central London and any number of other world class cities around the planet that enjoy excellent street life.

Proper design and attitude is key.

[MolsonExport]

Old people want to preserve the past; young people want to shape the future.

[Spitfire75]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Old people want to preserve the past; young people want to shape the future.

So true.

If only we had young people on the Heritage committee, in office, or even running for office.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by Spitfire75

So true.

If only we had young people on the Heritage committee, in office, or even running for office.

One of the problems is that in this city it can actually be a significant career and personal liability to win