[Halifax] Waterton Towers | 2X40 m | 2x12 fl | Completed

[someone123]

**this should actually be moved to the suburban section**

This is a United Gulf project currently under construction near Northwest Arm Drive.

Rendering (from http://www.unitedgulf.ca):

http://www.greaterhomes.ca/waterton/images/renderingfeather.jpg

[Wishblade]

This is definately one of my favorite developments in the city. I like it more than Gladstone Ridge in fact. Does anybody have any fairly recent pics of the construction site?

[Amanita]

I got some pics, but they were mainly of the crane- notice it looks a little different than most of our local Tower cranes- "topless" design.
I heard a rumour that the construction company had been thrown off the jobsite because they could not find an operator for it, however on a recent trip into town, the crane was working. So perhaps they did manage to pull their butts out of the fire and get somebody.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3961/img0791nk0.jpg
This crane's a Comansa, same type they had in "Casino Royale".

[worldlyhaligonian]

How new is that picture with the crane? I thought the site would be farther along than that at this point.

How visible are these buildings going to be?

[Amanita]

I took that picture a little over a month ago. However, it was only very recently that anyone got up in that crane to do some work. So probably not much progress yet.

[worldlyhaligonian]

how many floors are up?

[Wishblade]

Does anybody have a progress update on this? I know it was slowgoing when it was last talked about. I was just wondering if anybody had been near the construction site as of late.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Updates??

[terrynorthend]

Haven't been out to the site but I was in the vincinity of Strawberry Hill/Windsor yesterday morning, and looking across it is clear that progress is being made. Four-five floors have crested above the horizon. Looks like it will add nicely to the vista of Fairview when it is complete.

[kph06]

I drove by there the other day, they are setting up the form work for the 7th floor above grade. I think it is the building on the left in the above picture they are working on? The basement/garage for the second building is poured along with the columns, I suppose they are waiting for the first building to be finished before they move it's crane over for the second one.

[worldlyhaligonian]

cheers

[Wishblade]

Yeah, Im noticing it peek above the horizon when crossing the MacKay and going into the Windsor st intersection. Good to see progress being made.

And just to add, does anybody think the crane for this project is a little massive considering the building heights? It looks huge coming from Dartmouth lol.

[Spitfire75]

Could someone post a google map screenshot or something of where exactly this is? Thanks.

[someone123]

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.63189,-63.632786&spn=0.002096,0.005879&t=h&z=18

[Spitfire75]

thx

[kph06]

Here are two photos I took today.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2434698390_060cbee71a_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2434698160_5f89601c5e_o.jpg

[Jonovision]

A fresh shot out of my window in Dartmouth. I realize the quality is horrible, but thats what a 24x zoom does. Normally all you can see is the crane and the building is hidden in the trees.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_0909.jpg?t=1211909338

[Wishblade]

Good lord that development looks huge from that perspective :eek:

[terrynorthend]

Lol..the condos that ate Halifax!! Just one of those optical illusions caused by telephoto lenses..they have a relatively greater effect on distant objects than near ones...

[someone123]

It's not an illusion, it's just a different lens compared to the ones humans have in their eyes. ;)

This effect is what you get from having a longer focal length. Many project renderings and elevations are orthographic, which is what you get when by extending this effect to infinity (a single object looks equally large no matter how far away it is). They're therefore very different from what the final product looks like in person.

[terrynorthend]

Yeah, that's what I said.. Lol!!

[Jonovision]

Here's the clear shot I promised.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_0918.jpg?t=1213848646

And also a random one looking through the bridge up towards Clayton Park.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_0930.jpg?t=1213848736

[Dmajackson]

Does anyone have updates for this project?

[worldlyhaligonian]

i have a visual update from today, the first tower is almost done with its exterior work and looks amazing. This is my favorite development currently U/C.

[Jonovision]

I'll try and take another pic from my window.

[Wishblade]

I saw this development the other day while travelling to bayers lake. And it's looking really good. The design features at the top of the building kind if remind me of the top of Juno Tower in Stad.

[Jonovision]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_1616.jpg?t=1220121232

[Dmajackson]

Today at the Shopping Centre this building could very easily be seen on the horizon. Its beautiful.

[Wishblade]

Today at the Shopping Centre this building could very easily be seen on the horizon. Its beautiful.

Which shopping centre would that be? Regardless, its a pretty visible building from many places.

[terrynorthend]

I'm guessing Halifax Shopping center..there is a great view from the little ballfield atop MacDonald Road (follow Mumford across Chebucto..almost to Quinpool).

On a side note, in that picture above, its nice to see they went with the same colour scheme as Ocean Towers, since they line up so cleanly in your window, Jono. :jester:

[Dmajackson]

Which shopping centre would that be? Regardless, its a pretty visible building from many places.

yah it was the Halifax Shopping Centre.

Depending on what side the other building is on it might be blocked from where i was standing. The towers around Armdale are pretty tall...

[worldlyhaligonian]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_1616.jpg?t=1220121232

Will tower 2 be on the right or the left on the tower currently U/C? as pictured above

[Haliguy]

Will tower 2 be on the right or the left on the tower currently U/C? as pictured above

I believe it will be on the left.

[Dmajackson]

I believe it will be on the left.

So then it will be blocked from where i was standing at the HSC. I think the nloocking building is where the Cronicle Herald moved to...

[Haliguy]

Here's an updated pic from today..

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/a_gallant/IMG_0030-1.jpg

[Dmajackson]

Is that the second tower on the left? or its that some other building nearby?

[worldlyhaligonian]

The building on the left is the Roxbury, the second tower will be the exact same as the first and is only at the foundation.

This development is moving quickly which is good news, especially with UG being the developer.

[someone123]

It's interesting how common these larger concrete apartment and condo developments have become. Certainly they make suburban Halifax seem somewhat larger.

[kph06]

The building on the left is the Roxbury, the second tower will be the exact same as the first and is only at the foundation.

This development is moving quickly which is good news, especially with UG being the developer.

I think this development is actually about 6 months behind, there was delay after delay when construction began. I think it's on track now, but I doubt they will make up the lost time. I think people were suppose to have moved in by this past summer. The foundation for the second building was poured with the first one but I've heard a number of different rumors of why its on hold.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I meant fast in relative terms, the tower went up faster than Spice took to get its foundation in.

[Dmajackson]

I meant fast in relative terms, the tower went up faster than Spice took to get its foundation in.

Well the Moes aren;t winning any awards thats for sure...

Its now a joke in my family. Oh look they got another panel up! That only took 6 months! :haha:

[macgregor]

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

[sdm]

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

All that indicates to me is condo sales are slow. If he wished to proceed with Hollis street they would likely need greater then 60% presold to secure financing. With Trillum trying to actively presale now they very well could absorb some possible purchasers from UG project.

Time will tell, but the clock is ticking on the development agreement downtown.

[kph06]

It's true one delay was not getting enough workers, but the main reason behind this was they didn't want unionized workers for the general contractor. This is why it took so long to get the crane running because they had to find a non-union crane operator, the guy they finally got was from Australia. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I have some serious doubts about the downtown buildings happening.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

I wonder if tower 1 sales are complete at this point... the construction seems to be going at a good pace now.

[Wishblade]

Does anyone have any updated photos of this project? I've only been able to see it from afar and cant really get a sense of how far along this is. Although it does look like the first tower is near completion.

[kph06]

Here are two photos I took today, of course I decided to wait all day to take them so the sun was going down. The exterior is pretty much done, cladding still has to be placed on the north end of the top two floors I think this is suppose to give it an all glass look.
Another interesting point is that the other building base as been sealed off. This fall the garage level had no roof on it and all the columns were exposed and this is where all the "flyers", the bracing system used to form the floors were all stored in the garage. So now as the second photo shows, the main floor has been poured. It seems work will not start at least for the winter because none of the development length (rebar overlap between floors) is exposed for the columns, suggesting more floors will not be poured above this level for the time being. There is however a hole covered over by plywood which I would suspect is the opening for the crane base, so that is a good sign.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/3104920311_a4bb5f5f8b_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/3105750318_0f062906c5_b.jpg

[sdm]

Developer wins appeal to build 12-storey towers
PAUL MCLEOD, METRO HALIFAX
December 24, 2008 05:00

A developer has won two appeals against HRM and now has the right to build two 12-storey towers in Armdale.

The municipality originally blocked the United Gulf Developments Ltd. project at 60 Walter Havill Dr. in April 2007. The developer also had to appeal the Chebucto Community Council, which refused to amend a development agreement to permit the towers.

Much of the debate focused on whether both towers could be 12-stories tall. Under the original agreement, one tower was limited to four stories. The developer asked community council to revisit the agreement, but this was rejected without a public hearing.

The case ended up being brought to the Utility and Review Board. Yesterday they released their ruling that the community council’s refusal to amend the agreement failed to reasonably carry out the region’s planning strategy.

The UARB also ruled HRM development officer Andrew Faulkner’s rejection of the project conflicts with the development agreement.

[Dmajackson]

So is this what was holding up the second tower from going up?

If so this id great becase they might be able to start the second one next year. :)

[sdm]

Armdale apartment decision must be appealed: councillor
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 | 11:56 AM AT Comments0Recommend0CBC News
Halifax municipal officials are considering whether to fight a decision by the provincial regulator allowing two 12-storey apartment buildings to go up in Armdale.

Regional council has asked legal staff to look into the possibility of an appeal.

Coun. Linda Mosher said the decision by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board sets a bad precedent, and she wants a court to overrule it.

"To say that two 12-storey buildings connected by the same underground parking is one building is ludicrous," Mosher said Tuesday.

There are a number of issues to consider, such as wind, shade and view planes, she said.

United Gulf Developments Ltd. first proposed one 12-storey building and two smaller units. It later asked the Chebucto Community Council to modify the development agreement and allow two 12-storey units.

The community council rejected that, prompting the developer to turn to the utility and review board.

On Dec. 23, the review board sided with United Gulf Developments' plan for two towers, saying council had no policy basis for refusing the developer the changes it wanted.

The municipality has about two weeks to decide if it will appeal to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

[worldlyhaligonian]

wtf!

seriously, the first one is already built... the site would look awkward without the other tower. mosher is totally off base on this one.

I'm moving away from Halifax again, this kind of news is BS.

[sdm]

wtf!

seriously, the first one is already built... the site would look awkward without the other tower. mosher is totally off base on this one.

I'm moving away from Halifax again, this kind of news is BS.

I would think they would want to promote density and job creation in that area.

[kph06]

View-planes????

Are you kidding me? What historic view planes are out there? Secondly if this crucial view plane does exist, the first building doesn't encroach on it?

[Keith P.]

View-planes????

Are you kidding me? What historic view planes are out there? Secondly if this crucial view plane does exist, the first building doesn't encroach on it?

She is clueless as usual. She is using the term "view plane" instead of "view", I can only presume. I base that upon some interviews I saw on the news the other night where nearby residents were complaining that a second tower would change the look of the area for the worse. But who knows...

God forbid that someone comes along and wants to develop a piece of scrubland in the burbs to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in new tax revenue.

[Barrington south]

I'm not a huge fan of this building(s)...reminds me of an old fashioned 1950's Slab with a couple of curved add ons on the roof to try and break up the monolithic nature of the building

[someone123]

I guess this is NIMBY central since it happens to fall within Armdale, but really it's off of NW Arm Drive and is pretty much Clayton Park. Plenty of 10-12 storey towers have gone up or are going up in this corner of the city.

As for wind and shadow, those just sound like excuses. The fact is that they would have prepared these studies and presented them to the community council, so what exactly is the problem? Tornadoes are going to spawn and take out that car wash shack 100 m away?

[Jonovision]

The crane on site is finally coming down today.
One can hope that it will be up soon enough for tower 2.

[sdm]

News out today in allnovascotia that HRM is now appealing the UARB decision on the second tower.
States the developer was going to start in May, however with this appeal it can't proceed.
Whats with this city.

[dartmouthian]

what..................................THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?!?
just when you think its over.

[Dmajackson]

WTF!?! Okay so seriously where can we build? HRM is against building downtown and now is against building something tall in the suburbs! :hell:

No wonder Burnside is so big. We can't build tall in it but we also cant build tall anywheres else. Heck, 12 floors isn't even that tall. Its shorter than that ugly red brick diseased building on the Bedford Highway.

EDIT: Seeing the absudity of this decision by HRM I emailed the local councillor for the Waterton area (lmosher@halifax.ca) and I urge everyone to also email her with your opinions.

[someone123]

So in the end the city will end up getting the tower anyway, but after a long delay and cost to the taxpayer for HRM staff involvement?

Armdale is full of NIMBYs. Mosher seems to have a similar view and, at least, probably wants them to re-elect her. The sad thing, however, is that this isn't even in Armdale. The only people living by this building are those who have recently bought in related developments, both of which included a similar tower component.

There are also two twelve storey towers being proposed a bit farther down NW Arm Drive, and countless similar buildings in Clayton Park.

This is nothing at all unusual for the area, it's just the classic case of fighting for as little development as possible with no real justification and this is why they lose 90% of URB hearings.

[Haliguy]

What the hell hell: Unbelievable!:

[spaustin]

I don't know enough to comment on whether this is a good decision or not (I don't know the area well), but on the face of it, I can't see why allowing more density out in the burbs is a bad thing. Just to wildly speculate for a moment, the city might be playing hardball with this to try and defend their original development agreement. A taller 2nd tower might not really be the issue.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I can't say I'm suprised by anything anymore.


Between the heritage folks, NIMBYs, and environmentalists, development in Halifax doesn't even appear to be worth it.

So sad.

I wonder if twisted sisters will ever happen.

[pnightingale]

I don't understand... how can they appeal this far into the game? Are the two towers considered separate projects? Can they really launch an appeal when one tower is done??

Is this a sure thing, or did they just announce that they are planning to appeal? I would have thought we would have heard something about it before they launched an appeal!

After all this talk about how great HRM by Design is because the city wants to speed up the approvals project, and then they do this. They're not practicing what they preach here!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Because the two towers were under a single development agreement. Technically they are attached at their foundations.

Mosher is being rediculous with this appeal. The urban landscape would be awkward and unfinished in that neighborhood without the other tower...

[spaustin]

I thought I read earlier that the 2nd tower was suppose to be smaller but United Gulf applied to ammend the agreement to increase its size and HRM said no. That then led to some silly argument about how the second tower is part of the first because they share a base. Maybe I'm off base here, but that's what I recollect. I tried to find the decision on the URB but it's either not up yet or I'm just not a great researcher :)

Edit: Found it! Here's the URB decision. I'm going to take a quick look http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/doc/2008/2008nsuarb167/2008nsuarb167.html

Edit, Edit: Okay here's the skinny of how this mess came about from the URB:

[8] The final phase of Stoneridge to be developed is Site C, which is now owned by the Developer. Site C is located in the southern part of Stoneridge, along North West Arm Drive. It is bounded on the three other sides (within Stoneridge) by Osborne Street, Walter Havill Drive and lands adjacent to Hail Pond. The plans annexed to the original development agreement described Site C as being 2.08 hectares in size (i.e., 5.13 acres). However, as a result of the approval of the Seventh Amending Agreement dated April 2, 2007, land equivalent in size to four 4,000 square foot lots was removed from the northern portion of Site C to permit the Developer to build single family dwellings along Walter Havill Drive. As a result, the reduced configuration of Site C, by the Board's estimation, now comprises about 4.76 acres.

[9] The development agreement, both before and after the Seventh Amending Agreement noted in the preceding paragraph, provides for three apartment buildings on Site C with a maximum height of four storeys each, with "the exception that one building may be permitted to be of a height of 12 storeys."

[10] The applications which are the subject of the two appeals herein (i.e., the application for a development permit and the application to amend the development agreement) will, regardless of which alternative the Developer chooses to proceed with, result in only one building being constructed on Site C, i.e., the proposed 12 storey apartment building (with two towers). In such an event, the other two four storey apartment buildings will not be built.

[11] As noted above, the plans attached to the development agreement show three building-shaped icons on Site C. There is an icon showing a 12 storey building on the southern portion of Site C adjacent to North West Arm Drive. There are also two icons on the plans showing two four storey buildings in the northwestern and northeastern portions of Site C.

[12] The proposed 12 storey two tower building proposed by the Developer is shaped like a boomerang. However, the footprint of the proposed 12 storey building extends beyond the 12 storey icon shown on the plan in the development agreement, with one end extending to cover a portion of the icon for the northeastern four storey building.

II HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

[13] This matter involves a series of applications by the Developer with respect to the development of a 12 storey structure on Site C.

[14] On March 16, 2006, the Developer first applied to HRM for a development permit for the proposed two tower 12 storey building on a single podium. The application was denied on May 26, 2006, and the Developer did not appeal that decision to the Board.

[15] Following the refusal of a development permit for the proposed two tower 12 storey building on a single podium, the Developer applied on June 29, 2006 for a different two tower building on a single podium. However, in this instance, the application was for a 12 storey tower and a four storey tower. This application was approved on July 26, 2006. The Board notes that the footprint of the foundation for this approved building is identical to the footprint of the proposed two tower 12 storey building which is the subject of the two appeals before the Board.

[16] Construction on the approved 12 storey tower has commenced and, as of the date of the site visits described below in this decision, the 12 storey tower was partially constructed to its full height. While the foundation for the entire building footprint was also completed on the date of the site visits, construction on the four storey tower has not started. The Board infers that the Developer is awaiting the consideration of these appeals by the Board before construction begins on the second tower.

[17] On September 18, 2006, the Developer applied to Community Council to amend the development agreement to permit the construction of the proposed two tower building, with each proposed tower being 12 storeys.

[18] A public information meeting respecting the application was held on November 8, 2006.

[19] A report dated June 5, 2007, (the "Staff Report"), prepared by Richard Harvey, Planner, and submitted by Paul Dunphy, Director of Planning and Development Services for HRM, recommended that the Community Council approve the proposed amendment to the development agreement.

[20] Without holding a public hearing, Community Council refused the amendment of the development agreement at its meeting held on June 18, 2007.

[21] On July 3, 2007, the Appellant appealed to the Board from the decision of Community Council, the grounds of appeal being described as follows:

... the decision of Municipal Council is not reasonably consistent with the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. In particular, Council failed to recognize the following:

1. That HRM staff had submitted a report indicating the Amendment of the existing Development Agreement complied with the overall intent and policies of the Municipal Planning Strategy and recommended approval of this amendment.

2. A twelve storey building is already permitted on this site. Council failed to recognize that the Appellant was not creating an additional twelve storey building with this amendment but was instead attempting to modify the footprint of the permitted building thereby eliminating the need to construct two already permitted additional buildings, increasing the available green space, improving setbacks from existing and future housing, increasing available parking and softening impact upon adjacent uses.

3. The proposal would increase underground parking, reduce the demand for surface parking, and by creating a new exit for traffic, substantially reduce the traffic on Walter Havill Drive.

[22] On October 31, 2007, the Appellant resubmitted its application for a development permit. The application was substantively the same as the earlier request for the development permit which had been refused. Andrew Faulkner, Development Officer, refused to issue the development permit by letter dated November 1, 2007. The Appellant appealed to the Board. The ground of appeal stated as follows:

... the decision of the Development Officer does not comply with the Development Agreement.

[23] Both appeals were heard by the Board in the same hearing.

So what's it all mean. To my mind HRM isn't quite as villianous as they first came off. United Gulf has just refused to take a no on this one and have really worked the system. It's really similar to what happened in this same development concerning park space around Hail's Pond. Reading between the lines, I think my earlier hunch that this one has more to do putting United Gulf in their place then whether there is a 2nd twelve storey tower on site or 3 four storey buildings. They probably don't want the logic that it's all one building to hold up either.

[sdm]

So what's it all mean. To my mind HRM isn't quite as villianous as they first came off. United Gulf has just refused to take a no on this one and have really worked the system. It's really similar to what happened in this same development concerning park space around Hail's Pond. Reading between the lines, I think my earlier hunch that this one has more to do putting United Gulf in their place then whether there is a 2nd twelve storey tower on site or 3 four storey buildings. They probably don't want the logic that it's all one building to hold up either.

Not sure if i share the same thoughts as you but this means HRM is taking this to the appeal court of NS and there is a fine line on whether the UARB is wrong or not. What i read UARB decision doesn;t have any faults, and therefore not likely HRM will win.
The costs of this appeal could be high. And today there is news about a 19 storey condo building on bayview, and here we are bitching about two 12 storey buildings?

[spaustin]

I didn't mean that HRM should be fighting this. I was just digging a little deeper to try and figure out why HRM is so set on not letting this one pass. Look at the timeline (at least my read of it since it's convoluted),


United Gulf applies for two 12 storey buildings on a single podium and is denied
United Gulf applies for a four story building on the podium along side the 12 storey building (the podium foot print being completely unchanged). HRM agrees.
United Gulf has the first tower well underway but never starts on the smaller 4 storey beyond the podium. United Gulf applies to revive their original plan (their podium works in either option) and is refused.
United Gulf appeals on some solid planning grounds (putting two towers there uses less land etc), but also trots out some nonsense technicality logic about it being all one building.
HRM loses the appeal at the URB and apppeals to the courts


I can get from this why HRM might be peeved :) United Gulf just wouldn't accept the no answer and, you could argue, the 4 storey proposal they trotted out was just a ruse to get HRM's approval. Now is it worth appealing an appeal to prove a point and put United Gulf in their place? In this case, I don't think it really is. They should just cut their losses and be ready next time around since, at the end of the day, this doesn't sound like a bad place for a second tower (as opposed to 4 low rises).

[terrynorthend]

Yes. I far as I can see, what we have here is an old-fashioned pissing match. HRM and Mosher are peeved because they think UG is putting one over on them, so regardless of the merits of 2 towers they are fighting against it.

UG decided if they can't get what they originally planned, they would try an appeal..which is fair- perfectly their right, but maybe they mislead the city (a tiny bit) by saying they would change to a 12 and a 4 story tower. Meanwhile, they have been publishing renderings of 2 twelve story towers in the real estate papers for 3 years now. I'm sure HRM have been steaming about that all along, expecting something them to try like this. Now that UG won the appeal, HRM is furious and going after UG like jilted bureaucrats, doing everything they can to stick it to UG.

Its just like when a private home-owner builds a garage or addition without getting a permit, then the city takes them to court and rather than fining the homeowner and letting them keep the addition, makes them tear down the addition- even if the permit would have been a simple rubber stamp.

Nobody wants to be wrong.

[inside scoop]

The reason for applying for a permit for a 12 storey and a 4 storey was to get the project started. If they had waited to get the permit for two 12 storey towers they would still be waiting. The project was always planned, applied for and marketed as two 12 storey towers, the problem was with city staff changes and varying interpretations of the rules.

[Dmajackson]

The reason for applying for a permit for a 12 storey and a 4 storey was to get the project started. If they had waited to get the permit for two 12 storey towers they would still be waiting. The project was always planned, applied for and marketed as two 12 storey towers, the problem was with city staff changes and varying interpretations of the rules.

Welcome "inside_scoop" :)

And yes I agree with you that they planned all along to have two twelve storey towers on the site. They just simply got them approved the easy way which involved messing around with HRM policy a bit.

[worldlyhaligonian]

So have we heard anything new on the status of tower 2?

[Dmajackson]

So how is the first tower progressing? It must be close to finished by now.

[Haliguy]

Here's a pic I got today.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/a_gallant/IMG_0444.jpg

[someone123]

Is that crane for the other one?

It looks okay I guess... really it is just another box in the suburbs.

[Barrington south]

Looks like an old fashioned 1950's Slab apartment building to me...like the ones that are so common in Toronto...
They just added those cheezy little curved flares on the roof to make it look a little modern and "contemporary"...
man we've come a long way from the '50's!!!..now we have curved flares on our roof's!!....sarcasm aside...
it will look cooler with a second building...

[kph06]

Yeah, I think the big "sail" covers some of the rooftop machinery, but the smaller ones actually create a pretty cool ceiling for those units, adds something a little different. But it is very much just a block building.

[phrenic]

If you're going to incorporate a "sail" like element into your building, you should go all the way:

http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/burj-al-arab.jpg

[Haliguy]

[QUOTE=someone123;4204736]Is that crane for the other one?

QUOTE]

I'm not sure it was hard to tell.

[kph06]

Is that crane for the other one?


No, they've had a mobile crane onsite before they took the tower crane down just lifting loads to the upper floors.

[DigitalNinja]

Any idea when they are going to start Tower 2? I might e-mail them for a timeline of their projects.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Any idea when they are going to start Tower 2? I might e-mail them for a timeline of their projects.

Its actually not technically approved yet, go back in the thread and read what happened... quite an interesting legal case.

[jackputter]

I live in Stoneridge, right near where this monstrosity is being built. Most have replied that leaving it at one tower would look awkward. I'm not so sure. The curent tower is set back from Walter Havill drive and near hail pond and looks good.
However, the secon tower (still in debate as to their right to build it) juts out at an odd angle, due to the site shape, towards Walter havill. Literally the corner of the second tower would be about 20 feet from the street,and at 12 stories thats pretty intimidating for the owners of the homes across the street - when taking about shadows and site lines these are the ones losing out.
By the way, those that purchased homes acroos the street were told by the real estate company selling them, owned by greater homes, in turned owned by United Gulf, that the second tower would only be 4 stores and would probably not be built. Dirty pool I say.
Another issure is population density - the HRM states that the project would go over the current allowable limit for persons per square Kilometer - this is what prompted them to move Garage access from Walter Havill to Osborne Street as it would have geneated too much traffic volume for a residential street such as Walter Havill.
In a nutshell, HRM cannot let United Gulf get away with this as it would set a precident for other developers to do the same - one foundation = one building - changing plans half way through construction - pissing formers customers (all of stoneridges residents are against the second tower) from noise, dust, garbage, creating a parking ban on one side of the street, 18 months behind and no end in site! etc etc etc!!!!

My two cents - I really hope they lose in court - which I heard through a crown friend they will most likely - got through review board on a loophole!

[Dmajackson]

^I was out to the area today and I noticed that the first on is on a nice angle to the road and while I can't speak for what the second one will look like the first will look good once the landscaping is in place I imagine.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/3695995094_7db23fedf3_b.jpg

[inside scoop]

The appeals court denied HRM's appeal.
The second tower is a go at 12 stories.

http://www.courts.ns.ca/decisions_recent/decisions_weekly_list.htm

[worldlyhaligonian]

Thank god.

Honestly I understand alot of your concerns "Jack Putter", but construction noise and some of your other complaints are temporary. Hell, I live next to the Trillium site... going straight into bedrock, now that is loud. I think the benefit outweighs any cost.

Also, its not a monstrosity, the Stoneridge building itself is like 10 stories. What you are saying is quite subjective, as I think close proximity of somewhat tall buildings to houses or streets to be very efficient (I live in Park Victoria).

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you didn't want to see a building like this maybe you shouldn't have bought in the burbs, as that is where the majority of towers will be going up in the future.

[jackputter]

I am not saying i do not like the first tower its nice and increases the value of our neighborhood. I should have made it a little clearly, what i didn't tell you is that when myself and my neighbors purchased here we were told by the builder that the second tower would never go to 12 stories but go up at 4 as the original plan called for. We found out later that the appeal was already filed when we were told that - thats our biggest contention.
Also, worldlyhaligonian, this is not the burbs. Its only 5 min to downtown from here! And the park victoria? efficient? Pay $300,000 plus for a home and see how efficient you feel about!

You have to know the HRM has ligitamit concernes if they would try to fight something that would give them quite a lot of tax dollars if it goes through.

[DigitalNinja]

I'm sorry this might be the banker coming out in me, but if you have a mortgage, and you probably do with a 300k home. You don't own it... Your bank does.
And things change. There was demand for the second tower and there will be demand for a lot more back there. Expect to see a lot of development in the near future.

[Dmajackson]

There will defenitely be a lot of demand for towers in the area.

Its one of the few areas left around HRM that are right nest to parkland/nature but still within a ten minute drive of Downtown. And well judging by how visible the tower is on the Western-side of the Peninsula there are probably some sweet views from up there.

[Dmajackson]

Problem with the view
Halifax News Net
By Lindsay Jones – The Weekly News

Council has lost an appeal to the province’s highest court over the Waterton condo development overlooking Northwest Arm Drive.
United Gulf Developments can now go ahead and build a second 12-storey building on Walter Havill Drive near St. Margarets Bay Road following a recent Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision that upheld a Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board ruling in its favour.
That has some nearby homeowners, who say they were under the impression a smaller scale development was in the works, feeling frustrated.
Purcells Cove-Armdale Coun. Linda Mosher says the former city of Halifax approved the original Waterton development agreement in 1990 for one, 12-storey building and two, four-storey structures. Over the years, the developer applied several times to amend the agreement, most recently to build two, 12-storey buildings, she added.
Ross Miller was the third person to build a home on Ridgepark Lane near the development. He purchased land seven years ago from United Gulf Developments. Miller says his view, the value of his home and neighbourhood noise levels will all be impacted by the decision.
“It’s just maddening to buy something with certain conditions and then somebody changes the rules in the middle of the game,” said Miller, who lead a petition against the second 12-storey building. “It doesn’t seem fair that they’re allowed to do that once a plan is decided upon and somebody has sold the lots and houses to people based on that plan.”
Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments, said he was never applying to change the development agreement, but was seeking clarification on what he’s allowed to do.
“Under the development agreement, we believed that is what we’re allowed to do, and that’s what we wanted to do,” Saberi said.
He said all real estate literature and presentations made it clear that he has been planning to build two, 12-storey towers for the last five or six years. He said he has never contemplated building two four-storey buildings.
“It’s unfortunate that through the process the project got delayed ... The only thing this did was make the construction go for two-and-a-half more years instead of being finished and everybody getting on with their lives.”
Construction on the second tower is scheduled to begin in April.
He said the new tower will have greater benefits for the area, such as increased green space, more underground parking, less massing of buildings and better traffic circulation, as well as geothermal heating systems.
In the 32-page decision, the court said what the developer is proposing didn’t significantly differ and reasonably carries out the intent of the city’s Municipal Planning Strategy.
But Mosher vehemently disagreed, saying she’s dismayed at the decision. She said many homeowners in the area told her they never would have bought their homes had they known a second 12-storey building was in the works. “It’s going to obliterate their view,” Mosher said.
“The court has basically thrown out the intent of a development agreement. Unfortunately, that’s the highest body we can appeal to, so we have to abide by the decision and allow the two towers to go up.”
Mosher said the decision doesn’t just impact Waterton, but any current or future development agreement.
“It almost makes our development agreements look like a piece of Swiss cheese with holes through it.” she said.
From now on, Mosher said any development agreement proposed in her district will be reviewed by legal services before coming to council.
ljones@hfxnews.ca

[Wishblade]

Will somebody please tell these people that they don't own the view? Im tired of hearing people complain about that. They knew one 12 story tower was going up, and another building of atleast 4 stories, so what are they complaining about?

Atleast its going up finally.

[Jstaleness]

Linda Mosher says the former city of Halifax approved the original Waterton development agreement in 1990 for one, 12-storey building and two, four-storey structures.

Are you kidding? This development started in the 90's and we just finally see the first building almost done? Thats sad. I guess it'll be close to 2030 when International Place and others around are complete. I understand that things take time but 20 years for a 12 storey building is way too long.

[Barrington south]

herald Say's this is now officially approved

[Jonovision]

Appeal court OKs second tower for Armdale project

By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Wed. Sep 2 - 4:45 AM
A Halifax developer is in the clear to begin construction of a second 12-storey condominium in Stoneridge on the Park subdivision.

The Nova Scotia Appeal Court has rejected an effort to have approval of the project quashed by Halifax Regional Municipality.

United Gulf Developments, headed by Navid Saberi, won the right to build the second structure last year after a long fight with the municipality at the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

A review board decision ruled the two 12-storey towers constituted a single building.

Some Halifax regional councillors had vowed to stop the project after some area residents complained that the developer was building two towers on a single platform.

The recent Appeal Court decision said the review board was "reasonable" in its assessment of the process that led up to approval of the project.

Mr. Saberi was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

[Dmajackson]

So whats the current news for the second tower? Cu I've seen ads in the paper but they don't specify the building ...

[fenwick16]

The rendering for this one looked so much better than the finished product.

[Wishblade]

Does anybody know if work on the second tower has begun, and if not when it will?

[WatertonNO]

I wouldn't go near this project. I have a friend who bought 4 years ago with her $5,000 deposit. The building is 18 months overdue and my friend has been waiting forever on a string of broken promises on her closing date. So just when she thinks she is going to be able to close on her unit on September 30th (her 5th closing amendment date) Greater Homes sends out a letter to pretty much everyone (apparently) demanding immediate occupancy, 12 months of rent cheques of about $1,700 and something like an additional $30,000 deposit, which is nowhere in the contract. Who would give a company $30k unsecured until whenever??? Some people don't even have that much to put down. They wouldn't even give the girl notice after making her wait an additional 18 months.

Anyway, since then, the company hasn't responded to her lawyer's letters and the original lawyer for the firm apparently sent out a letter informing all the lawyers he wasn't repping GH anymore, but the dumb sales guys who were just brought in keep telling everyone that this lawyer is still the guy. So nobody knows? It's a massive nightmare for (I have heard) about 100 unit holders who bought in early. The unit holders have been finding each other through their lawyers and I guess there are a ton of Halifax lawyers with clients in this situation. Her sales person who sold her the unit has been taken off the project and noone will talk to her at Greater Homes. The people there keep telling her to have their lawyer call their lawyer, even after noone knows if they even have one?

So if you are looking for a good hassle free deal, stay the hell away from the Waterton! If you don't believe me, just ask around Halifax. I am sure you will find someone who knows about this or has a friend dealing with it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

That doesn't bode well for the UG development...