HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2013, 7:29 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
[Halifax] Capitol Suites (Coburg & Seymour) | 19 M | 5 FL | U/C


Source

Case: 18322
Location: 6124 Coburg Road
Lot Area: 8'504 sq ft.
Height: 19 M
Floors: 5 total
Former Use: Commercial / Residential
Proposed Use: Commercial / Residential
LUB: Halifax Peninsula
Architect: Geoff Keddy Architects Ltd
Developer:

2013.12.10 - MPS/LUB Amendments Initiated
2014.02.19 - Public Information Meeting to be held




The long anticipated redevelopment of the Need's Convenience store on Coburg Road finally has definitive plans!

Initiation Report - Case 18322

After reading the intitiation report I think the building will be a great addition to the neighbourhood and the the modern facade will mix well with the Mona Campbell Building next door! The only two concerns I have are 1) The two commercial units are tiny and front onto Seymore and not Coburg, 2) There is at-grade parking inside with access from Coburg Road.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ

Last edited by Dmajackson; Feb 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2013, 5:48 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
I like this very deep on-going discussion.

But seriously the DA application process is allowed to proceed to the public consultation stage. Fellow forumer Waye Mason was opposed to the motion citing nearby single-family households and development restrictions around the university as reasons not to consider the project. Linda Mosher countered his points with the urban growth targets, and the preferance for development agreements over blanket zoning.

Source : "City Hall Desk" (December 11th, 2013) by Amy Pugsley Fraser - AllNovaScotia.com
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 431
I would have also countered councilor Mason's point with the fact the Need's building is a dump and drags down the area as a whole.

Time to build this now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2013, 3:09 PM
kwajo's Avatar
kwajo kwajo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Uptown, Saint John
Posts: 1,671
Yeah this building would be a huge improvement to the area IMO, its scale is just fine for the neighbourhood and the current structure is one of the worst in that area currently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,633
With all the talk of adding more population density on the peninsula, I wonder if taking a mid-sized convenience store out of the area is moving in the wrong direction. I haven't been in it since it became a Needs, but if memory serves this was once a small Capitol store (a grocery store for those of you who are too young to remember the pre-Superstore days), which would seem to be the way to go as density increases and more people shop on foot rather than by car.

This project doesn't look as though it allows enough commercial space to satisfy the needs (pardon the pun) of a growing neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2013, 5:01 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
With all the talk of adding more population density on the peninsula, I wonder if taking a mid-sized convenience store out of the area is moving in the wrong direction. I haven't been in it since it became a Needs, but if memory serves this was once a small Capitol store (a grocery store for those of you who are too young to remember the pre-Superstore days), which would seem to be the way to go as density increases and more people shop on foot rather than by car.

This project doesn't look as though it allows enough commercial space to satisfy the needs (pardon the pun) of a growing neighborhood.
I remember when it was a grocery store; although I can't recall if it was a Capitol - that seems correct. I don't necessarily agree with Waye on this one - I don't think you can eliminate opportunity sites on prominent street corners when the surrounding context is well over 4 stories around it (including the university building and the adjacent apartment building). I don't believe that you can just paint all of the neigbourhoods outside of the identified corridors as a no go area, when you may have some development opportunities on these corners.

Obviously, if the surrounding context was more along the lines of 2 stories and there was no development around it - then that might be a different storey. But 5 stories isn't a huge step up when the university building next door is 4 stories? Maybe 5?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2013, 6:16 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Obviously, if the surrounding context was more along the lines of 2 stories and there was no development around it - then that might be a different storey. But 5 stories isn't a huge step up when the university building next door is 4 stories? Maybe 5?
According to ANS, some of the people who spoke against this development live in a ~10 storey building across the street.

I think this is one of those "infill is great, just not in my backyard" cases. It's easy to agree in the abstract that X% of development should be in the urban core, but in order to hit those targets the city has to actually permit new buildings somewhere, and some people will not be happy. There is empty land on the peninsula but it's not all immediately available or owned by developers (a large portion of it is owned by the government). It seem pretty likely to me that if developers can't even put up a lowrise apartment along a mixed, semi-major street like Coburg Road, there isn't much hope for hitting that 25% target.

I also find it pretty evil that people who live near Dalhousie complain about the fact that new housing might be available to students. In the case of the apartments on South Street years ago there were people complaining that nurses might move into the 1-bedroom units. Seriously.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2013, 10:43 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
According to ANS, some of the people who spoke against this development live in a ~10 storey building across the street.

I think this is one of those "infill is great, just not in my backyard" cases. It's easy to agree in the abstract that X% of development should be in the urban core, but in order to hit those targets the city has to actually permit new buildings somewhere, and some people will not be happy. There is empty land on the peninsula but it's not all immediately available or owned by developers (a large portion of it is owned by the government). It seem pretty likely to me that if developers can't even put up a lowrise apartment along a mixed, semi-major street like Coburg Road, there isn't much hope for hitting that 25% target.

I also find it pretty evil that people who live near Dalhousie complain about the fact that new housing might be available to students. In the case of the apartments on South Street years ago there were people complaining that nurses might move into the 1-bedroom units. Seriously.
Well the ultimate comment I made in a moment of frustration to a few community residents at an open house was if they don't like the fact this lot could be developed - buy it and turn it into a park. But don't expect the city to pay for it or fund the maintenance.

Shortly after I said it, I realized I had a total foot in mouth moment but then they huffed away and I never heard from them again. So I think sometimes a dose of reality is helpful.

Was this a public hearing or was it an initiation discussion? I ask that because Councillors normally only speak to it - was the public engaged during the discussion? I was a little surprised there were public letters already...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2013, 11:24 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
^This was just an initiation. The comments were just letters/emails the planning department has amassed since rumours of the development have surfaced (we've had renderings for a long time on here).

Initiation Report - Public Comments are towards then end of the document

Here are some of my favourites;

"3. Garbage .... The container would be a magnet for mice, racoons, seagulls, an other vermins. This would bring them into the neighbourhood and create a nuisance and health dangers for nearby residents"

Okay this is just pure NIMBYism. For one mice and seagulls already live on every block in Halifax. Secondly presuming this person is correct about the building taking up 100% of the lot that makes the only place for the dumpster to be INSIDE the building therefore making seagull problems impossible! Also I don't know if racoons are in the neighbourhood right now but I am positive there are less than in the suburban and exurban areas.

"The proposal includes commercial space on the ground floor. This would be yet another violation of existing zoning regulations. ... it also generates crime as the existing Need's store has done."

I don't think this person realises the site is currently zoned RC-1 "Neighbourhood Commercial". This specifically allows grocery stores which Need's is. The new building will have very small commercial footprints. They will be less traffic generating and likely be more "neighbourhood" like (ie barber shop, salon, ect).

The Carlyle Residents Association is just laughable. They claim density and height as their main concerns. This is coming from a high-rise whose zoning can be claimed as out-of-place in such a neighbourhood.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 2:24 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
^This was just an initiation. The comments were just letters/emails the planning department has amassed since rumours of the development have surfaced (we've had renderings for a long time on here).

Initiation Report - Public Comments are towards then end of the document

Here are some of my favourites;

"3. Garbage .... The container would be a magnet for mice, racoons, seagulls, an other vermins. This would bring them into the neighbourhood and create a nuisance and health dangers for nearby residents"

Okay this is just pure NIMBYism. For one mice and seagulls already live on every block in Halifax. Secondly presuming this person is correct about the building taking up 100% of the lot that makes the only place for the dumpster to be INSIDE the building therefore making seagull problems impossible! Also I don't know if racoons are in the neighbourhood right now but I am positive there are less than in the suburban and exurban areas.

"The proposal includes commercial space on the ground floor. This would be yet another violation of existing zoning regulations. ... it also generates crime as the existing Need's store has done."

I don't think this person realises the site is currently zoned RC-1 "Neighbourhood Commercial". This specifically allows grocery stores which Need's is. The new building will have very small commercial footprints. They will be less traffic generating and likely be more "neighbourhood" like (ie barber shop, salon, ect).

The Carlyle Residents Association is just laughable. They claim density and height as their main concerns. This is coming from a high-rise whose zoning can be claimed as out-of-place in such a neighbourhood.
It's all not just NIMBY, but entirely and completely idiotic.

And clueless, because they're complaining and they don't even know the relatively recent history of their own neighborhood.

The nearby Coburg Coffee House was originally a (commercial) local pharmacy, called Fader's. And Needs itself was a small grocery store called Capital, where people in the community literally bought everything they needed.

Where did this NIMBY attitude come from? Clearly it wasn't there in the post-war period. Is it a Baby Boomer thing? I don't know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2013, 4:55 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
it also generates crime as the existing Need's store has done."
LOL! Based on this statement, a good method of reducing crime is to eliminate all stores.

They could further reduce crime by getting rid of anything of value, so the thieves/robbers would have nothing to take.

Genius!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 1:19 PM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,283
I wish I could say that I am shocked by some of the comments, but unfortunately they are par for the course.

This is in my general neighbourhood, and I am 100% supportive and plan to write in to voice my support. This is a spot that already has apartments above the store, and hence is already multi-unit, so it is not like it is replacing a single family home. In my view the Coburg corridor is ripe for low to mid-rise development that I hope would someday justify a streetcar type transit that went from downtown, up SGR and then up Coburg to Oxford (then on to HSC or something). Given the sheer number of students in the area I actually think that this would be a profitable enterprise (much like the #1 bus is).

I am particularly pissed when people in my area complain about how students will end up living in these apartments. The fact is that we live in an area near the university, and students are going to live there one way or the other. The best way to reduce the pressure on single family homes getting snapped up and converted to student slums is to provide more dense housing options for students… the comments for example that were made when the Lemarchant residence at Dal baffled me, when instead that is exactly what is needed to provide students a place to live while reducing pressure on family homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 10:22 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,661
The current building looks pretty rough from what I remember.

Those complaining are likely a bunch of old people that aren't even from this part of town originally.

Why are infactual remarks even recorded. If somebody can't prove this isn't zoned for commercial, why is this false view even being taken into account??? This could fix alot of problems, its undemocratic to print all of these lies, not the opposite as these people tend to claim. Stop making shit up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 10:26 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
It's all not just NIMBY, but entirely and completely idiotic.

And clueless, because they're complaining and they don't even know the relatively recent history of their own neighborhood.

The nearby Coburg Coffee House was originally a (commercial) local pharmacy, called Fader's. And Needs itself was a small grocery store called Capital, where people in the community literally bought everything they needed.

Where did this NIMBY attitude come from? Clearly it wasn't there in the post-war period. Is it a Baby Boomer thing? I don't know.
Its definitely a baby boomer thing. They feel now their liberal streak is to be anti-development and protect their castles... well, too bad you guys fucked up the environment, etc... and now you're taking a stand against "traffic" and "development" when that generation created this mess back when they were in their 20s. Move aside, Halifax will develop for the better and it cannot be stopped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 11:34 AM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
LOL! Based on this statement, a good method of reducing crime is to eliminate all stores.

They could further reduce crime by getting rid of anything of value, so the thieves/robbers would have nothing to take.

Genius!
OldDartmouthMark for Chief of Police!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2013, 11:54 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Its definitely a baby boomer thing. They feel now their liberal streak is to be anti-development and protect their castles... well, too bad you guys fucked up the environment, etc... and now you're taking a stand against "traffic" and "development" when that generation created this mess back when they were in their 20s. Move aside, Halifax will develop for the better and it cannot be stopped.
Just seeing this now, but it is a winner. Am I able to nominate this post for "sticky" status on the main page?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2013, 9:23 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Just seeing this now, but it is a winner. Am I able to nominate this post for "sticky" status on the main page?


I'm not "anti-babyboomer" either, I just think their view that they are entitled is really wrong and that youth feel "entitled". As far as I can figure out, they benefited significantly from various activities that wouldn't fly today (e.g. 30 year jobs, etc) and then created the mechanisms so that young people can't enter the labour market.

The young generation is the most educated ever, and not "entitled", but at least let them participate in the labour market by hiring them over these folks who can't even use MS Office properly, 'nuff said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2014, 6:42 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
The Public Information Meeting will be held February 19th, 2014 at 7pm at Dalhousie's Rowe Management Building (6100 University Avenue).
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2014, 7:51 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
The Public Information Meeting will be held February 19th, 2014 at 7pm at Dalhousie's Rowe Management Building (6100 University Avenue).
Just bumping this. I'm not home yet but for those who are this should be quite the show!
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2014, 4:18 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
Just bumping this. I'm not home yet but for those who are this should be quite the show!
You're right about that. I was asked by a group of university students to sign a petition against building this... Their main reasons were

1) It doesn't fit with the neighbourhood (how I don't know, as the Mona Campbell and a large apartment building are beside it)

2) It will close the Need's (Get your convenience store stuff from university convenience 1 block up!!)

The fact that young people are fighting this is quite a scary thing really..
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 7:32 PM.

     

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