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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2009, 8:00 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,118
It definitely meets HBD standards, but the developer would obviously prefer to have it grandfathered in so there is no delay in waiting for HBD to be finalized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2009, 8:25 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
They have the floor plans up on the details page now.

I don't think those were there previously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2009, 11:08 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
It definitely meets HBD standards, but the developer would obviously prefer to have it grandfathered in so there is no delay in waiting for HBD to be finalized.
Actually it wouldn;t meet the HBD due to set back and angle control
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2009, 11:14 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 466
No it wouldn't meet HbD, but I don't think that's a shortcoming of HbD.

HbD is designed to promote good buildings. What is proposed here is god, but not because of what's allowed. The developer and Architect (Michael Napier, I believe for this one) have suggested something that looks like it fulfills many of the intents of HbD, if not the letter. They'd certainly be allowed to develop something FAR less sympathetic to the city and to the street than this, and that's what HbD is meant to remedy. Sure, it means that some potentially good developments wouldn't be allowed in their current forms, but it also means that many terrible ones wouldn't be allowed.

My guess is that if HbD was in place prior to the design work and Development Agreement application for this particular project, the same developer and architect would have produced another excellent end result.

I see this as a case of doing well in SPITE of regulations rather than because of them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2009, 11:34 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,680
I think it's a bit weird to be making this kind of analysis. Sure, it's possible that some theoretical good designs would not be allowed under HbD, but it's also possible that there are others out there. The real question is whether or not it leads to higher quality buildings, more infill development, and better streetscapes overall.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2009, 11:48 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think it's a bit weird to be making this kind of analysis. Sure, it's possible that some theoretical good designs would not be allowed under HbD, but it's also possible that there are others out there. The real question is whether or not it leads to higher quality buildings, more infill development, and better streetscapes overall.
HBD i believe may take the appeals and delays in developments away, but it will place restrictions on developments that will likely make things less attractive to build.

Last edited by sdm; Apr 20, 2009 at 12:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 8:41 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
Well this hasn't been talked about in a looonnnngggg time.

According to a Staff Report this project is still in the plans and has a Staff Report underway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 9:49 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,323
Dexel has quite a bit on the go right now with Greenvale Lofts and The Vic. I suspect you'd hear more once at least one of the two is done with. They had 3 years from the decision to grandfather it in the old rules to get going, so they have some time to work with. They should at least start the approval process soon because I'm sure they're be some opposition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2010, 3:10 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,051
Considering the turn out at the original public information meeting for this proposal I don't see it having much problems getting through the public hearing. The only people who showed up besides myself were mainly residents of the other condo building on top of City Centre Atlantic and I don't really think many of their concerns are legit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 5:48 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
They've revised the renderings and elevations for this one to apparently break up the bulk of the building;

Case 01227 Details
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 7:34 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,051
Looks good. I like the addition of the balconies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 7:49 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,051
I pulled these off the document.





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 8:29 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
The proposed Development Agreement is going before the PAC and HAC tonight;

Development Agreement 01227
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 11:24 PM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
The proposed Development Agreement is going before the PAC and HAC tonight;

Development Agreement 01227
Wow, those letters from NIMBYs at the bottom are something. "Traffic...parking...traffic...parking...my view!" .

My favourite quotes:

Quote:
will make an already difficult parking sitation on Spring Garden much, much worse. This will cause greatly decreased shopping traffic [...] resulting in decreased GST and the shuttering of shops and restaurants in the district.
Quote:
The inevitable added traffic load would be seriously dangerous for all in this area, especially for, but not limited to, the residents. This is a basic issue of health and safety!

[...]

There is plenty of suitable development space even only a few blocks away. Let new apartment buildings be developed there!
Quote:
It would be an unsitely structure built in the fashion of the Paramount and Martello complex, where in the back-side of these structures, they (units) are impacting one another unfavorably in poor design.
No, there were no typos in the transcribing of that one

Quote:
If Dexel had similar concerns for its future inhabitants, they would not create ghetto conditions, devoid of light, privacy, and decency.
Quote:
The density created by the proposed development [...] has to be negative. The previously secure balconies on the third floor are now to become an almost irresistible crime scene. [...] If the proposed development takes place, we will survive only at the cost of surrendering our personal security.
Some legitimate concerns, but mostly a load of alarmist silliness and subjective opinion presented as fact. Personally I like the density and the prospect of an entrance and people on Birmingham Street, where currently there is only a loading dock for Pete's and a big blank wall. Legally speaking, I think all the blather about "privacy infringement" is total BS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 11:35 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 1,279
^ Sorry, I didnt see a legitimate concern in there. All complete NIMBY bs.

This thing is 5 stories people, 5 stories! They make it sound like its going to be 50 or something...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 12:20 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
How exactly can the parking around SGR get any worse anyways?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 2:20 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
How exactly can the parking around SGR get any worse anyways?
easy, once HRM sells the lands on clyde street, which they should do and get on with it. Those two sites should have been allowed to go 12-15 stories, but thanks to sloane they are more or less 7.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 1:08 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,408
Reports this morning are that this failed to get approved at committee last night, though it still remains up to the full council to vote yes or no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2010, 9:23 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,447
The Development Agreement appears to be going before Regional Council Tuesday evening.

In a reverse of normal Halifax approval process the Heritage Advisory Commitee suggested Approval while the District 12 PAC suggested rejection (something about a dead wall).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2010, 9:36 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,680
Are the parkades in this area even full? Park Lane has a pretty large one and there's a lot of underground parking in maybe a half a dozen buildings. On-street parking is hard to find but that's something that just does not exist in sufficient quantities once an area hits a certain level of density. Spring Garden Road is busy enough that nobody should expect it to be like a small town where you just drive up and park wherever you feel like.

If there really is a serious lack of parking there the solution is to include parking structures on the Clyde Street lots.

It looks like this building does have two blank walls facing Spring Garden Road, but those are in the interior of the block. I don't imagine that the little Atlantic Photo Supply building, etc. are going to be there forever - they should and probably will be torn down and replaced with something a couple of storeys taller that will cover up the buildings in behind.
__________________
flickr
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 10:51 PM.

     

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