HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's 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.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

    Skye Halifax I in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 10:01 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,257
The motion to rescind was defeated, the vote was 13-11 in favor of rescinding the motion, but 2/3 needed to be in favor for it to pass. It was a heated debate with most councilors confused about what they were arguing about. Sloane quoted Louis Resnick was as saying if this passes he wants 20 more floors for the Roy Building. Stretch said he didn't care what "an old guy from Toronto says" (I think he is talking about the architect in a previous article, not Resnick.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 2:40 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,438
This story was in the Chronicle Herald - http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenova...d-eiffel-tower

Quote:
Go on, Lady Halifax, build an Eiffel Tower
April 1, 2012 - 4:23am By GAIL LETHBRIDGE | First Word


Gail Lethbridge wonders: Does Lady Halifax have the courage and vision to build an Eiffel Tower or its equivalent today?(REMY DE LA MAUVINIERE / CP)

A few years ago, CBC Radio ran a contest asking listeners to characterize Halifax as a fictional character. The contest was interesting, not because of the answers it generated but because it asked the right question.

Who are we?

The winning entry described Halifax as a rambunctious teenager trying to find his way. That didn’t quite capture it for me.

I would see Halifax as a classy lady in late middle age. She’s dressed in her finery but it’s a little dated. A hipster might call it retro or vintage but she wears it because that’s what she’s always worn and it’s getting a little tired now.
.
.
.
full story - http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenova...d-eiffel-tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:30 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
"The winning entry described Halifax as a rambunctious teenager trying to find his way. That didn’t quite capture it for me.

I would see Halifax as a classy lady in late middle age."




It's pathetic when the winning entry describing Halifax isn't enough for this opinion article. What a waste of time. If 'Lady Halifax' is worried about her weight then maybe she should stop sprawling!

I should have known the article was a joke from its title -- comparing Skye Halifax, a residential building, to the observatory that is the Eiffel Tower. Give me a break. This article's author, Gail Lethbridge, should try becoming a fiction writer instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 8:12 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
"The winning entry described Halifax as a rambunctious teenager trying to find his way. That didn’t quite capture it for me.

I would see Halifax as a classy lady in late middle age."




It's pathetic when the winning entry describing Halifax isn't enough for this opinion article. What a waste of time. If 'Lady Halifax' is worried about her weight then maybe she should stop sprawling!

I should have known the article was a joke from its title -- comparing Skye Halifax, a residential building, to the observatory that is the Eiffel Tower. Give me a break. This article's author, Gail Lethbridge, should try becoming a fiction writer instead.
I didn't get the sense that she was comparing Skye to the Eiffel Tower per se. I think the point was more that if the Eiffel Tower were proposed here, it would be shot down because it violates height regulations. It makes no difference what positive qualities proposed developments have, if they're too high then they don't belong here. We are not allowed to build anything that might be considered more iconic than what already exists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 8:56 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
It makes no difference what positive qualities proposed developments have, if they're too high then they don't belong here. We are not allowed to build anything that might be considered more iconic than what already exists.
'More iconic' than what already exists? So height is 'the' factor in determining whether or not something is iconic? I think the White House in Washington, D.C. may disagree.

The Eiffel Tower was constructed as the entrance to Paris' 1889 World's Fair; it had significant political and public support. Skye Halifax, a residential building, is proposed because ...the previous proposal was approved...?

Perhaps, if Skye Halifax were twin observation towers it would garnish more support? Once it's approved, United Gulf can then not build it and then propose something even taller! -- and so on, and so on...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 9:23 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I didn't get the sense that she was comparing Skye to the Eiffel Tower per se. I think the point was more that if the Eiffel Tower were proposed here, it would be shot down because it violates height regulations. It makes no difference what positive qualities proposed developments have, if they're too high then they don't belong here. We are not allowed to build anything that might be considered more iconic than what already exists.

Exactly. The original Medjuck proposal for the WDC lands had an observation tower in it, you might recall. That quickly got shouted down by the usual height-phobic suspects with cries of "We're not Toronto!" and the ever-popular "It's Too TALL!!!". He was forced to remove it.

Perhaps if he had instead proposed a 2-floor walk-up observation deck made out of red brick with some styrofoam trim it would have been accepted as an icon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 9:57 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
'More iconic' than what already exists? So height is 'the' factor in determining whether or not something is iconic? I think the White House in Washington, D.C. may disagree.

The Eiffel Tower was constructed as the entrance to Paris' 1889 World's Fair; it had significant political and public support. Skye Halifax, a residential building, is proposed because ...the previous proposal was approved...?

Perhaps, if Skye Halifax were twin observation towers it would garnish more support? Once it's approved, United Gulf can then not build it and then propose something even taller! -- and so on, and so on...
As I said earlier, I don't think anyone is comparing Skye to the Eiffel Tower here. I think it's more of a hypothetical statement. And no, I'm not saying "more iconic" means "taller" or that something has to be tall to be iconic. I think that in the existing urban environment, larger buildings are more likely to be "iconic" simply because they stand out more. When people think about Halifax, Purdy's Wharf probably comes to mind before Province House does, not because the buildings are inherently "more iconic" but simply because they stand out more. Many of those who are against tall buildings are also against anything new standing out, saying that this destroys the integrity of heritage. I do remember some members of the heritage trust specifically saying that "the Citadel is our icon, and we don't need any more landmarks" a couple years ago. The new library is a huge shift in this mentality, but is more of an exception than a rule. Generally the trend until very recently has been that new developments should not be noticeable at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 11:24 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,438
I liked the story by Gail Lethbridge; it is good to see these ideas being discussed. I am not excited by the Skye proposal but if it looked more like the Absolute towers in Mississauga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_World) then it would be something that would dramatically change the Halifax downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 11:28 PM
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Many of those who are against tall buildings are also against anything new standing out, saying that this destroys the integrity of heritage. I do remember some members of the heritage trust specifically saying that "the Citadel is our icon, and we don't need any more landmarks" a couple years ago.

Ah yes, the infamous Kommissar Howard Epstein statement that Citadel Hill is a gravel drumlin and that is the only icon Halifax should ever have or need, during his fight against the original United gulf proposal.

Quote:
The new library is a huge shift in this mentality, but is more of an exception than a rule. Generally the trend until very recently has been that new developments should not be noticeable at all.
They did not oppose the library because it is only 4 or 5 floors high. If Queen Judith had come forward with a "tower of learning" that was 20 floors or more tall, that would have been a fight worth buying a ticket to watch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 11:54 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I think that in the existing urban environment, larger buildings are more likely to be "iconic" simply because they stand out more. When people think about Halifax, Purdy's Wharf probably comes to mind before Province House does, not because the buildings are inherently "more iconic" but simply because they stand out more.
I agree. And I believe King's Wharf Tower may give Purdy's Wharf's iconic status a run for its money.

It would be an interesting shift to have Halifax's most recognised building ... in Dartmouth!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Generally the trend until very recently has been that new developments should not be noticeable at all.
The Twisted Sisters would have been very noticeable. I know there is a loud minority in Halifax that has concluded the Citadel be the last icon of this city, but most people have been wanting new, modern, unique developments in the downtown for many decades.

The Twisted Sisters were approved.

Skye Halifax steps on too many toes, however; but hey, it may also reach approval -- if United Gulf ever gets around to producing renderings! Maybe the should ask Fenwick?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post

Skye Halifax steps on too many toes, however; but hey, it may also reach approval -- if United Gulf ever gets around to producing renderings! Maybe the should ask Fenwick?
My renderings might cause a few Heritage members to have heart attacks. (it wouldn't be pretty)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 9:06 PM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,013
A couple radio interviews concerning Skye. From what I've heard so far, the representative of UG makes a much better argument and punches quite a few holes in the "10 reasons not to build this" piece. I'm personally very frustrated with that architect's take that putting 600 units on one block will mean a host of missed opportunities to catalyze development elsewhere. Downtown is where we're trying to catalyze development in the first place and one 600 unit project won't saturate the market in a city of 400,000, especially because theses aren't luxury condos, unlike most new multi-unit developments in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 9:45 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
^

The 'United Gulf Guy', Patrick LeRoy, believes -- and I quote -- "HRMbyDesign is an excellent document."

He's either deluded, or a liar.

Both Patricks do make an excellent argument for building the Twisted Sisters.... or Skye Halifax, or whatever other proposal they put forward after the previous is approved.

Whatever the end result of the Skye Halifax public consultations -- I wish the process could be accelerated so that the city can move on and eventually get something built there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 10:12 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,401
The architect's argument about absorption was somewhat contradictory. He started by implying that there's a certain level of absorption or demand and finished by saying that having a larger number of smaller buildings could induce more demand. The UG argument about the specifics of the market is much more convincing and is backed up by the reality of competition between the downtown and suburban housing markets. I would expect demand for downtown housing to be elastic because of suburban construction projects.

I don't think LeRoy was lying when he said HbD is a good document. It has many good parts, like the parts that require buildings to have a proper street-level design. Despite the overwhelming and unfortunate attention that they get, the height limits are only one aspect of HbD.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 10:43 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,438
Has a date been set for the public hearings? I think if the architects hope to develop strong support they will have to change their conceptual design to something extremely inspiring. And if so, then won't the cost per unit increase accordingly?

In the first audio clip with the two United Gulf architects, they state that to pay for 450 parking spots in 4 levels of an underground parking garage they need more condo units. However, that seems like a poor argument since if they have fewer units they won't need as many parking spots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 10:57 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
In the first audio clip with the two United Gulf architects, they state that to pay for 450 parking spots in 4 levels of an underground parking garage they need more condo units. However, that seems like a poor argument since if they have fewer units they won't need as many parking spots.
Yeah, that wasn't a good example. They should have mentioned something like the substantial sunk costs of buying the land and paying taxes on it for 8 years. They did briefly mention carrying costs and the cost of approvals and permits.

I wonder if people are being won over by the UG interviews and statements. In the past a lot of people here on SSP stated that they thought the whole thing was a ploy or was unrealistic. I think that position will become less and less tenable as UG show more commitment to this project. Hopefully they will produce some good renderings, including 3D models that accurately show how the buildings will fit in with the rest of the city. Part of the reason for the misinformation is the lack of real information from UG, although I do think it's wrong to jump the gun and condemn a proposal before it even gets a public hearing. We also can't really expect UG to go to great effort to design a building when council has a history of occasionally shutting down public hearings.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 1:29 AM
coolmillion's Avatar
coolmillion coolmillion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Halifax, Vancouver
Posts: 219
I think it's good to remember that Patrick Leroy represents UG and stands to gain from this project, whereas the other people who have publicly commented recently (including Paul McKinnon from the Downtown Halifax Business Commission) don't have vested interests in the same way. Basically we're comparing advertising with independent commentary.

Regardless of the debatable merits of the building's design or impact on the skyline and economy, I think it should also be borne in mind that United Gulf has a terrible track record and let their previous building permit for the same site lapse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 5:13 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,036
We should build a giant lighthouse, clad in beige vinyl siding, with fake cornices and LED lights. 50 stories.

It may, in fact, conform with HRM by design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 6:16 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
We should build a giant lighthouse, clad in beige vinyl siding, with fake cornices and LED lights. 50 stories.

It may, in fact, conform with HRM by design.


Hopefully Trillium Syndrome won't become contagious.

On a serious note, despite what I sense to be a somewhat large amount of support for Skye Halifax, I think more people may be swayed to join this crowd if the project had more public assets: specially, one or both towers hosting an observatory on their penthouse levels or roofs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2012, 8:06 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,131
From Skye Halifax's facebook page:

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING:

This is your opportunity to learn more about our project and have your voice of support heard!

When: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 7:00PM

... Where: Marion McCain Arts & Social Sciences Building (Ondaatje Hall – Big Hall Room to your left soon as you enter the main entry on University avenue)
Dalhousie University


Hopefully some new renderings and perhaps some of the study results?
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 6:27 PM.

     

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