[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[q12]

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/media/skye_website.jpg
http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/media/skye_website.jpg


I figured we might as well start a new thread.
They have updated the website. I hope these renderings are "alpha" renderings and we will get to see something better soon.
http://www.skyehalifax.ca/


Here is a blog posting of someone who clearly supports this. I agree with a lot of the points he made including this:
By contrast, the current benchmark of the Halifax skyline are the two Purdy’s Wharf towers (18 & 22 floors), which were revolutionary when they were built in the late 1980′s. Perhaps it’s time to try something revolutionary again?
http://ourhalifax.com/2011/07/26/skye-halifax-tallest-halifax-development-proposal/

[halifaxboyns]

I'm really torn about this application. I actually liked the twisted sisters proposal and was hopefully they would build it - I was sad to see they never have (at least not yet).

I'm looking at this proposal and it's interesting but I have concerns about the location and height. I know this sounds funny from someone who lives so close to (and really enjoys) the Bow tower here in Calgary (I've attached photos just to show you my view hehe).

I think it's great to get people talking about the whole viewplane/rampart height issue. But I don't know if it should be because of an application - I'm thinking it's more of a regional planning exercise. Granted, it won't be up for renewal for at least another 16 years which is a long way away.

For me - the view from this part of the citadell hill is one of my favs. I really enjoy sitting up there and watching the harbour with a coffee. I don't mind the maritime centre - but the whole point of the viewplane next to this site is to protect the view of George's island from the hill and I'm worried this might block it out - which is sad to me.

I think this may be a case of a good idea; wrong location. With all the talk of the Cogswell interchange coming down - there is the possibility that land would become available there. For me the compromise solution would be to exclude the cogswell lands from the rampart rule - thus there would be no height maximum. The area is already concealed by the apartment buildings and office towers from Scotia Square - so I don't see an issue with that.

But I just have a lot of concerns with this being where it is.

And now...the Bow :)
From my balcony during the stampede parade(the clutter is on my neighbour's balcony):
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6043918223_cb20eff459_z.jpg

During a recent rain storm...
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6044471040_706fe300b6_z.jpg

[resetcbu1]

:previous:
That's the old fire hall/budget renatal .....Hmmmm I know exactly where your bulding is my ex used to live in your building few years ago , do you ever eat at great pizza?

[halifaxboyns]

:previous:
That's the old fire hall/budget renatal .....Hmmmm I know exactly where your bulding is my ex used to live in your building few years ago , do you ever eat at great pizza?

Once in a while - it's under new owners.

[CorbeauNoir]

I'm looking at this proposal and it's interesting but I have concerns about the location and height. I know this sounds funny from someone who lives so close to (and really enjoys) the Bow tower here in Calgary (I've attached photos just to show you my view hehe).

I'm back in Calgary for a few weeks before I head off to Vancouver. There's still something about the Bow that bugs me. Something just seems overly... blunt and monolithic about it, I feel like chimps should be beating each other to death with bones at the foot of it or something. :haha: Very clearly a Foster project but it really lacks the grace of form I've encountered in their London works. At least it isn't as ugly/a financial quagmire like that pedestrian bridge they're trying to build out in the west end of downtown.

As for the Skye project, it seems more like an incitement to provoke more than any kind of actual proposal. The renderings are super-preliminary but they don't look like anything that would ever reasonably be built in Halifax, even if their heights were in line with HbD

[halifaxboyns]

I'm back in Calgary for a few weeks before I head off to Vancouver. There's still something about the Bow that bugs me. Something just seems overly... blunt and monolithic about it, I feel like chimps should be beating each other to death with bones at the foot of it or something. :haha: Very clearly a Foster project but it really lacks the grace of form I've encountered in their London works. At least it isn't as ugly/a financial quagmire like that pedestrian bridge they're trying to build out in the west end of downtown.

As for the Skye project, it seems more like an incitement to provoke more than any kind of actual proposal. The renderings are super-preliminary but they don't look like anything that would ever reasonably be built in Halifax, even if their heights were in line with HbD

One of my planner colleagues said that he doesn't like it either because when viewed from a far distance on the landscape - it is one big rectangle building. He thinks that is where they fell down on the design.

Yes, when you are near it, you can see the bend of the shape like this: ( but far away you can't. I think that's what you mean and I agree.
But I'm more comforted by the view I get from my balcony; so I won't complain.:)

[fenwick16]

I really can't get excited about this proposal. If such a dominant structure is ever to be built in Halifax then I think it should be a very iconic structure as opposed to just being tall. As someone else mentioned, the Skye proposal looks too much like two Cogswell towers (probably my least favourite building in Halifax).

Here is an example of an iconic building in San Francisco - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid . The upper floors aren't very practical since too much of the upper floor area consists of elevator shafts. However, it is a popular, often photographed building.

I would be happy to see the United Gulf proposal go back to being two (or even one) 27 storey towers. It should be noted that as a residential tower of 27 storeys it wouldn't be any higher than 1801 Hollis.

[Jstaleness]

I agree. As per this render they are very basic. I would doubt the actual buildings would be as plain. Too bad something like Absolute World couldn't be built but Mississauga was lucky to get it first.

[Phalanx]

Having had a chance to see Absolute World up close this summer, I can't really say I'm a fan of the aesthetics. That's subjective, anyway, though.

That said, I agree that the proposal for Skye Halifax, as it exists now, leaves me a bit worried. Too narrow for the height, and the bend makes them look like something from a cartoon. As it stands, I prefer the old proposal by far. Hopefully the design will evolve a bit into something more substantial (and hopefully with more glass).

[Empire]

I would like to see a design similar to the Empire State Building minus 65 floors.


Photo by Empire

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/NYC2009033.jpg

[haligonia]

:burstbubble: Err... That's the Chrysler Building, not the ESB. I do agree though, they are both stunning.

EDIT: It seems the photo has been changed. Oops!

[WestEndHali]

Looks like the Empire State Building to me...

[reddog794]

ignore please

[cormiermax]

The picture was originally the Chysler building.

[WestEndHali]

Sorry, missed the edits on both

[reddog794]

ja, entschuldigung

[hollistreet]

If you feel this is a project you would like to see move forward then you may want to sign the supporters list.
http://www.skyehalifax.ca/sign-for-support

[q12]

I see Keith P. was quoted on their site! :tup:

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz/item/economic-value-and-acceptable-exceptions-to-rules

More interesting opinions in "The Buzz":

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz

[beyeas]

Hey KeithP, you're famous! :-)

Check out the bottom posting on this page.

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz



EDIT: Apparently I owe Q12 a beer for saying the exact same thing at the same time.

[q12]

EDIT: Apparently I owe Q12 a beer for saying the exact same thing at the same time. LOL
LOL:cheers:

[halifaxboyns]

It's interesting that the took comments from the forum. It's good to have a healthy debate about this...and I do agree with KeithP's main comment that the plan and policy didn't take this sort of thing into account.

I just can't get over the location issue for me. If cogswell was reconfigured and it was there, I wouldn't have any objection to it. But for me...it just doesn't seem to fit well where it is and I can't seem to get past that.

[Empire]

I see Keith P. was quoted on their site! :tup:

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz/item/economic-value-and-acceptable-exceptions-to-rules

More interesting opinions in "The Buzz":

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz

Keith P. great piece.

Here is another good take on negative HRM.

=====================================
" If it was left to Peter McCurdy (July 25 letter), we'd still be living in grass and mud huts. Mr. McCurdy refers to the "traditions of our ancestors." Our an­cestors built and made their lives bet­ter. They were daring, fearless innova­tors. Our ancestors did not sit on their behinds complaining.

That's the problem with Halifax.

Nobody here wants to see Halifax grow. Our ancestors' spirit is gone. Anything out of the ordinary - cancel it. Build­ings are too tall. Can't see the harbour from the Citadel. Mardi-Gras? Can­celled. Why? A couple of drunks.

Grand-Prix? Cancelled. A few com­plaints about the noise. Commonwealth Games? Cancel. Stadium? Cancel.

We have an inept council and mayor who waste their time on parking bans and cat licences. Why is that? Is it be­cause we have too many old people living here? Doesn't anybody want our next generation to live in a thriving, modern city?

Thank God we still have a few devel­opers here who have a vision for the Halifax of the future. They're innova­tors, just like our ancestors used to be."

Andre Daoust, Halifax

[Empire]

It's interesting that the took comments from the forum. It's good to have a healthy debate about this...and I do agree with KeithP's main comment that the plan and policy didn't take this sort of thing into account.

I just can't get over the location issue for me. If cogswell was reconfigured and it was there, I wouldn't have any objection to it. But for me...it just doesn't seem to fit well where it is and I can't seem to get past that.

I tend to agree that for this height the Cogswell Interchange would be a better fit. The problem with the Interchance is that it will be 10 years before it will be decommissioned. Once it is decommissioned the available land just isn't there. In addition when the street system is reconfigured at Cogswell there will be traffic chaos/gridlock. A large, low, sprawling convention centre or MCII would never fit on that site.

[Keith P.]

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill... :D

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

[fenwick16]

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill... :D

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

I actually support most of your views. :cheers:

[beyeas]

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill... :D

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

Meh... sometimes you and I agree completely on topics, sometimes we completely don't. Funny enough, ever since we had our last spat I have actually found that for some reason we are agreeing in our views more than not. LOL

I did however specifically post about congratulating you on getting cited because I think that is pretty cool. That posting was a great example of a well reasoned factual argument, so I am not surprised they quoted it. I tell you when I disagree, so I am also telling you when I agree! *GRIN*

Joking aside, I do agree as well with Halifaxboyns that I find it difficult to get behind this specific project, but all the same your point totally stands that rules exist to be adapted and change with the times.

Genuine congrats on having a positive impact through that posting KeithP.

[TheNovaScotian]

I agree as well, its nice to see people on this site making an impact
I can't agree with other peoples opinion about Cogswell being a better site, this building would look good where it is situated.
I feel the Cogswell interchange is the best view of the Citadel from Dartmouth, not that I'm saying I'm against tearing it down and redeveloping it. I'm just saying good architecture could help keep some vantage points.

[Jstaleness]

No matter whether this seems too good to be true or not I can't help but get excited. It is the first time someone has even ever proposed such a height for downtown or region. I agree the renderings could use some work to really build on that excitement. Like Fenwick mentioned though, these could be the new Purdy's Wharf and the face for postcards featuring Halifax. Keith was right. It would be very difficult to play the same rules when it comes to approving this. HRMbD needs a few tweaks anyway so maybe now is the time to allow for something "extraordinary" in the rule books. The investment is huge and should not be ignored.

I'm not sure if HRMbD takes into consideration a projects economic spinoffs or if it's related only to size and community.

[Jonovision]

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

[halifaxboyns]

One of the benefits of tall buildings is that you can put way more units into it. Because the downtown core of Halifax doesn't have a density cap; your population is virtually anything you want (subject of course to the site services being able to accommodate what you hope to have).

The added 'work' for the developer is that you then have to sell more units. So it's good and bad.

The rules themselves can be changed easily if council chooses to do so. It's a matter of a text amendment to the Peninsula Bylaw, the Planning Strategy and the maps if I'm not mistaken.

The proof, as they say, will be in the application. So far, there is no case file for this - that doesn't mean there isn't, but there is no formal information online. But until I see this going forward as an actual application I still remain doubtful.

[Jstaleness]

If the units are going to sell for only 150 000 selling them shouldn't be that difficult. Over looking the harbour or Citidel at that price is a steal.

[sdm]

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

$150K for what size unit? I could sell units for 80k if they are only 200 square feet.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

Thanks for the info Jono, this is really interesting. Depending on the condo fees, I would definitely look into something in the $150-200 range. It would put alot of middle class people downtown... which is what the city really needs.

[Jstaleness]

It would put alot of middle class people downtown... which is what the city really needs.

Thus boosting the downtown shopping experience. Not everything downtown needs to be high-end stores. Another drugstore and some sort of grocery market would be welcome on Barrington St.

[halifaxboyns]

I would suspect you'd probably see the bachelors around 450 square feet at maybe $120 to $150k range. Then a one bedroom in the 750 square foot $150k and up. The two bedrooms (based on typical market size) now adays run between 950 to 1200 square feet and that's where you'd break the $200k mark. Three bedrooms will probably be $275k and up - that's been the typical range I've seen in the maritime markets.

[Haliwood]

Sign guys:

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/sign-for-support#signpetition

[Chadillaccc]

Nothing going on with these beasts yet? :(

[RyeJay]

Nothing going on with these beasts yet? :(

Nothing, as far as I know.

I'm still trying to make some noise about this proposal. Like others on this forum, I've signed the petition and have written councillors.

Some people believe this proposal is DOA--but there is a surprisingly high level of support for this to be approved.

[Chadillaccc]

Well that's great to hear. Would love to see Halifax get a nice new icon over 100 meters. Has anyone discussed the option of reworking the design in order to appease the naysayers?

[Nouvellecosse]

Reworking as in chopping off 35-40 stories? I suspect thats the only way to satisfy many of the naysayers.

[Northend Nerd]

This article was put on their website today, indicating that they are hoping to have construction starting by the end of next year. The website/twitter/fb has been pretty quiet recently so hopefully he can keep the info coming to build more support.

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/media/articles/the%20daily%20commercial%20news%20online.pdf

[someone123]

The article really downplays the whole issue of approval. I don't think rules like the ramparts bylaw are as sacrosanct as the Heritage Trust et al. would like us to believe, but it is far from guaranteed that this development will be permitted to proceed by council. And even if it's approved I'm not sure how confident I am that the buildings would actually be constructed.

[halifaxboyns]

The article really downplays the whole issue of approval. I don't think rules like the ramparts bylaw are as sacrosanct as the Heritage Trust et al. would like us to believe, but it is far from guaranteed that this development will be permitted to proceed by council. And even if it's approved I'm not sure how confident I am that the buildings would actually be constructed.

I have no faith in them at all. Their track record on this site is, frankly, horrible. Their level of confidence in that article is border line arrogant and I'm at a level of frustration with this site that I'm almost on board with Councillor Sloane to say the hell with anything, let it fall back to HbD.

My frustration is also with the fact they make these claims, yet there isn't even a planning application case yet. Serious guys, shi* or get off the pot already.

[Waye Mason]

Fake project.

[haligonia]

Fake project.

Exactly how I feel at the moment. With this track record, the block will probably remain empty for years to come. It's a shame, because we could have already had a fantastic development U/C on the site today.

[Empire]

The developer should be required to post a non-refundable surity for at least 100,000 given that this is the second questionable proposal. How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?

[someone123]

The developer should be required to post a non-refundable surity for at least 100,000 given that this is the second questionable proposal. How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?

The problem is that the original selling process was wrong. The correct way to do this is a conditional sale that requires a developer to proceed within a certain limited time frame. If they don't proceed, ownership reverts to the city and the purchasing price of the lot is refunded (minus a deposit). I believe this is what is happening with Clyde Street and I expect that the lots will be developed quickly.

The same procedure would also have been better for Salter. Hopefully the WDCL will be better about the Cunard site. And hopefully they'll develop it soon -- it's been a while since they released conceptual plans. Time to get something started on the waterfront. There's no good excuse for those prime lots to sit empty when less desirable lots nearby (Vic) are being successfully developed.

[RyeJay]

How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?

Through signatures online, and through political hope that the HRM may want to try something dramatically different for the downtown, given this economic golden age the city may soon experience. With its architectural nod to history this project is hoping to gain enough support for special approval.

[Waye Mason]

Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen

[someone123]

I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.

[Jstaleness]

I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.

I was also trying to figure out how Shangri-La was built under 300ft.

[q12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Shangri-La

Sounds like another one of those classic "Heritage Trust/Save the view" make up your own facts statement.

[Empire]

Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen

I live in Vancouver and that's news to me. I'm guessing it would also be news to people living on the 58th floor of the Shangri-La building downtown, which is about 650 feet.

And guests at the VANCOUVER | Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel | 460 FT / 140 M | 44 FLOORS would also be shocked.

[someone123]

It is also interesting to note a bit of the history in Vancouver's case. Ostensibly the view cones exist to protect mountain views. This makes sense until you wonder which views they're designed to protect. There are tons of public mountain views all around Vancouver that are at no risk of being blocked. The reason for the specific restrictions downtown are that some residents in a small neighbourhood nearby (Fairview slopes) were upset. These people were never previously guaranteed views as far as I know and there are fewer of them than there are residents in higher-density downtown infill buildings.

In any case, Vancouver's been loosening up the restrictions in specific areas, allowing buildings like Shangri-La and perhaps some other towers, like a large proposal near the downtown end of the Burrard Bridge. The sky has yet to fall.

Like I said I am far from convinced that the developer will build this but I have yet to hear a good argument against approving 47-storey buildings downtown. The "little old Halifax" arguments are extremely parochial in that they ignore the fact that building 47-storey structures is not actually technically difficult or particularly expensive. This is not a proposal to build reconstruct the pyramids. It is just another condo development. The only supposed reasons why this is "impossible" in Halifax are artificial and basically related to hand-wringing over the possibility of offending the sensibilities of small and historically ineffective special interest groups like STV.

[halifaxboyns]

Vancouver limits development to 300 feet, this is far bigger than that. #notgonnahapppen

That's totally inaccurate.
There are site specific height requirements throughout the downtown area, that vary based on policy.

Just going through the Downtown Zoning Bylaw (http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/ODP/dd.pdf), map 3, area 8 is capped at a maximum height of 137.2 metres, which is 450 feet. The dark areas on the map, which I believe includes Shangri-la, is outside of the downtown zoning (it's a special site specific zoning, much like a development agreement or a Direct Control District here in Calgary).

I don't believe the pacific rim falls into the downtown plan, it may be covered under the harbourfront or Coal Harbour plan. But I should point out that for the Pacific Rim; it was amended and it's height reduced. This is taken from the first post in the Pacific Rim thread:

"Originally proposed with maximum height of 472 feet and re-submitted at 463.72 feet, the city only approved to 458.25 feet, including all building appurtenances."

[-Harlington-]

As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol

[Waye Mason]

Okay okay, keep your pants on.

I APOLOGIZE.

I read this article in a San Francisco newspapers website and took it for universal fact.... on a re-read I guess they are talking about certain areas (South Downtown or whatever) not every area. I guess it would be right to say "some" or "many areas have a 300 foot height limit" but not "most".

Still and all, it is a good article.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-06-16/news/17494860_1_vancouver-s-city-council-market-street-downtown-south

[halifaxboyns]

As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol

Well, some economist friends of mine did some math when we talked about it. Typically with 'spin off' jobs, you can either get 2 to 3 from one full time job. So if 25,000 jobs are created with the major contract over 25 years you could see the whole contract create between 75 to 100k jobs (50 to 75,000 service sector type jobs).

To put that into a population perspective; if I remember my demographic calculations correctly from school 1 job typically creates a population increase ranging between 1 to 2.5. So taking the range into account and the economist numbers, you could see between 75,000 to 250,000 in population increase from the contract over it's 25 year life. So, taking 2010 population - it would see HRM jump to between 478,101 to 653,101 over 25 years.

Those numbers also don't take into account the potential for other sectors of the economy to see the contract and spin offs and decide that now is the time to spend $ to expand, thus creating even more full time jobs (and spin off jobs). So the contract could be the main event, but then could snow ball in job creation if other sectors jump on board with job creation.

[halifaxboyns]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-06-16/news/17494860_1_vancouver-s-city-council-market-street-downtown-south

Wow, this article is really old...2003. Larry hasn't worked for the City of Vancouver since I'd say roughly 2005? Maybe 2006 - he's working in Abu Dhabi now.

It's Brent Toderian who is now in charge of Vancouver's Planning. I know he worked out here in Calgary and knew Larry. I've met Larry twice at a conference, good guy.

Brent has a blog (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/10088).

[RyeJay]

As joke-ish as this may seem, does anyone think that the ship building contract might help this push through and get serious ??

I think it could help but im being optimistic, lol

I'm trying to be optimistic, as well.

I also wonder about how many people think that this proposal gaining approval would be, in a way, opening pandora's box. I wonder if people think height restrictions would be thrown out the window; after all, if Skye can build something this tall, why not others?

Halifax has a unique low-lying skyline, which I love. I support the height restrictions.

I also believe this skinny, sleek exception flatters the existing skyline. This would not be the case if the previously approved twisted sisters were this tall.

[-Harlington-]

I just wanna see something built, these vacant lots are getting depressing and always were

I actually think i would have liked the original proposal a little better
or maybe even a smaller scale of this one

[halifaxboyns]

I'm trying to be optimistic, as well.

I also wonder about how many people think that this proposal gaining approval would be, in a way, opening pandora's box. I wonder if people think height restrictions would be thrown out the window; after all, if Skye can build something this tall, why not others?

Halifax has a unique low-lying skyline, which I love. I support the height restrictions.

I also believe this skinny, sleek exception flatters the existing skyline. This would not be the case if the previously approved twisted sisters were this tall.

I'm in the same boat to a point. I think Vancouver's skyline works for Vancouver and Halifax can accomplish the same density, just in a different way. It may mean we need way more smaller, squat buildings but you can still achieve it.

Do I think some exceptions should be made - well it will depend on the proposal, but I'm open minded enough to consider it.

But if I had my way, the Agricola and Quinpool areas would be the "Vancouver-esque" areas where it would build as tall as you can.

[-Harlington-]

I like the Vancouver comparison
I think Halifax can work with some or add to good density

build up at heights we already have and build tall in certain places
have an odd tall one or two downtown and maybe Dartmouth among other areas

[Waye Mason]

Wow, this article is really old...2003. Larry hasn't worked for the City of Vancouver since I'd say roughly 2005? Maybe 2006 - he's working in Abu Dhabi now.

It's Brent Toderian who is now in charge of Vancouver's Planning. I know he worked out here in Calgary and knew Larry. I've met Larry twice at a conference, good guy.

Brent has a blog (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/10088).

What I found interesting was not the people, but the process... they had broad public consultation, they have view planes, they have a lot of development rules, but not a lot of specific design criteria, they have height restrictions. What was missing from the article was what kind of controls they have in Gas Town and Granville Island, for example. The article was pointed out to by someone who thought that Halifax in 2011 is where Vancouver was in their planning cycle in the early or mid 1990s.

[Empire]

I'm in the same boat to a point. I think Vancouver's skyline works for Vancouver and Halifax can accomplish the same density, just in a different way. It may mean we need way more smaller, squat buildings but you can still achieve it.

Do I think some exceptions should be made - well it will depend on the proposal, but I'm open minded enough to consider it.

But if I had my way, the Agricola and Quinpool areas would be the "Vancouver-esque" areas where it would build as tall as you can.

Young St. to Bedford Basin 20-35 storeys. Downtown could stretch from South St. to the Bedford Basin. Quinpool and Agricola are hard sells due to the established residential on the street and in the immediate vicinity.

[Jstaleness]

United Gulf to build 48-storey towers in Halifax

PATRICIA WILLIAMS
staff writer

United Gulf Developments Ltd. has unveiled plans for a $350 million, mixed-use project in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
designed to reflect the city’s sea-faring traditions and rich maritime history.
The two, 48-storey towers resemble a ship’s twin sails, “that push the seafarer toward the horizon,” says president
Navid Saberi.
He said the unique architecture will enhance the city’s reputation as a city of contrasts — one that celebrates its
past while embracing its future on the world stage.
Designed by Toronto-based architectsAlliance, the Skye Halifax will house condominiums that are “especially
sensitive” to the needs and expectations of the burgeoning Echo Boomer market. Units will be designed to
accommodate families, couples and individuals.
The development will include a boutique hotel at the podium level. Retail facilities and restaurants are also
proposed. Some 350 to 400 below-grade parking spaces will be provided.
LEED certification will be sought.
Green features include geothermal heating and cooling, green roof terraces, grey-water systems, low-flow
plumbing fixtures and elements and non-reflective glass.
Secured indoor and outdoor bicycle storage facilities will be provided. Shower stalls will be installed for the use of
commercial and retail tenants who commute to the city by bike.
Patrick LeRoy, United Gulf’s vice-president of operations, said conceptual design has been completed.
Construction is scheduled to get underway before the end of next year.
United Gulf is currently negotiating with three general contractors to construct the project.

“We will employ a construction management team on site to make sure the project is delivered on time and within
budget,” LeRoy said.

From a construction perspective, LeRoy said challenges could include recruiting some of the specialized workforce
that will be needed to build a project of this magnitude.

“The project design is well considered and we do not expect any major complications in this area.”
Halifax-based United Gulf has been in business since 1994.

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/images/media/articles/the%20daily%20commercial%20news%20online.pdf

[coolmillion]

As far as the comparison with Vancouver goes, that city has given a lot of thought to where tall buildings are located and the aesthetic impact of skinny towers concentrated on the DT peninsula. The skyline is meant to give a dome effect when viewed from a distance with heights increasing in the centre and diminishing on the edges (aided by the topography). Taller "stand out" buildings are permitted in a few locations but they are meant to be landmark buildings of exception design quality. I saw a talk about view cones, building height and the skyline a couple of years ago. In contrast such conversations haven't happened in Halifax, partly because the discourse is largely about maintaining the status quo views from the Citadel. Regarding Skye, I personally think that a building so much taller than everything else dt will look completely out of scale. I'm not averse to tall buildings but they should have some relationship to their surroundings, which Skye lacks.

A similar context in Vancouver to Barrington would be Gastown historic district where the Woodward's district was recently completed. This includes a tall highrise next to low-rise heritage buildings and it is the result of a very long planning and consultation process. It includes public spaces, low income housing, the renovation of historic buildings, public art, etc. etc.

If a developer is going to build a tower that exceeds guidelines it should include amenities for the public, not just ground floor retail spaces that will likely have "for lease" signs in the window for years.

I personally think Skye is a ridiculous proposal. I'm sure it will never get built and I think it's unfortunate that United Gulf owns this prime piece of land. It's obvious that they are in over their heads.

[-Harlington-]

He thinks there will be no complications, lol
How cute, ahah

[someone123]

A similar context in Vancouver to Barrington would be Gastown historic district where the Woodward's district was recently completed. This includes a tall highrise next to low-rise heritage buildings and it is the result of a very long planning and consultation process. It includes public spaces, low income housing, the renovation of historic buildings, public art, etc. etc.

But how do things like low income housing or public art really mitigate the effect of having a tall building near shorter buildings? I don't think the Woodward condos are amazingly planned, I think that building a highrise next to shorter heritage buildings is just not as big a deal as it's made out to be.

Many skylines have a limited number of buildings without much in the way of surrounding highrises. Frankfurt is one example that looks great. Really the whole debate is about the aesthetics of a poor abstraction -- skyline shape, which cannot even be separated from the design of the highrises themselves. Kind of sad, but such is the state of planning.

I also think that people are exaggerating how dramatic these buildings are, which is particularly easy to do in the absence of renderings. The buildings might end up 50% taller than Fenwick. They are probably not going to be twice the height of downtown office buildings because they are residntial, so the floor heights will be smaller. People who talk about everything in terms of floor count are not accurately comparing building size.

Yet another thing that is annoying about this is how dogmatic this debate has become. There is an implicit "pecking order" of cities and people get upset if they are confronted the cognitive dissonance caused by the flaws in their poor conception of reality. It doesn't matter how tall the buildings in Vancouver are. The real factors are how much the development costs, how much financing the developer can get, maybe how much demand there is for space, and whether or not the city's infrastructure can handle the building.

The other factors are artificial and whatever coherent arguments they might be associated with are not being communicated very well.

[Jstaleness]

These 2 buildings certainly wouldn't be filled over night. What's cool is that there really wouldn't be a bad view from any of the upper floors so they would sell well if priced right. Point Pleasant, Citidel, Public Gardens and the 2 Harbour Bridges would all be within the viewable area. Halifax is a very nice city when viewed from above. I think it would be great if these were built. I would buy there myself if I was single and didn't have 4 kids.

What Someone123 mentioned about height makes sense though. Fenwick is 98m and 33 storeys. So on average that's 2.97m per floor. This doesn't account for lobby and mechanical floors. So by comparison, Skye at 48 would be 142m. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the ground where Fenwick stands is higher above sea level than where Skye would be built. Based on that Skye could even be less than 50% higher making it that much less imposing toward the other towers.
This is very simple math and doesn't prove anything but I just figured for the hell of it.

[coolmillion]

But how do things like low income housing or public art really mitigate the effect of having a tall building near shorter buildings? I don't think the Woodward condos are amazingly planned, I think that building a highrise next to shorter heritage buildings is just not as big a deal as it's made out to be.

Many skylines have a limited number of buildings without much in the way of surrounding highrises. Frankfurt is one example that looks great. Really the whole debate is about the aesthetics of a poor abstraction -- skyline shape, which cannot even be separated from the design of the highrises themselves. Kind of sad, but such is the state of planning.


I agree with you that Woodward's isn't perfect, but in the absence of planning controls and consultation, the outcome could have been much worse. And I guess the proximity to DTES and threat of gentrification had a lot to do with the process. I also agree that tall buildings are not incompatible with heritage buildings but that design is the key to their relation. I guess more detailed renderings for Skye might help evaluate it.

[jslath]

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

[Chadillaccc]

How tall is a 48 story tower generally? I know here in Burnaby there is a 45 story U/C and it's 156 meters. So I'm guessing this one is gonna be over 160? That's ridiculous! Considering the tallest in downtown Halifax is only like 90 meters :S

[someone123]

However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views ...In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement?

No. The site isn't in the view planes. The bylaw simply does not apply, aside from suggesting that this actually is a good site for a tall building.

An example of privatizing views would be to take the Citadel, hand it to a developer, and charge entrance fees (errr.. Parks Canada already does this!). The views that would be available from this development are not presently accessible to the public. There's nothing to privatize.

[someone123]

So I'm guessing this one is gonna be over 160? That's ridiculous! Considering the tallest in downtown Halifax is only like 90 meters :S

These two things simply don't follow logically from each other unless you connect them somehow. Your argument as expressed is literally:

1) The tallest building in downtown Halifax is 90 meters, therefore
2) A building over 160 meters is ridiculous.

[q12]

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

I wouldn't pay two cents for the view of the oil refinery.

[Empire]

I’ve been reading over the comments in this thread and a puzzling issue has come up. One of the key features of Skye is the potential views from the upper levels (that’s why I would buy there). However, the View Planes Bylaw is designed to provide the public free access to those same views. No matter how affordable the developer claims the condos will be the market will ultimately dictate the price (and the developer will greatly profit).

In a sense, Skye is privatising and selling the view to the highest bidder. Is this a fair statement? Does this sway your opinion of the project? Would Skye be better suited for another area of the city? Someone else identified the Cogswell Interchange as more suitable for a project this size, would you agree? If you were to buy in Skye and a project was announced for a 40-storey building to go up across from Skye, and possibly block your view, would you support that project?

There is always a risk of having your view blocked by a new development. The views for Skye (should it ever be built) will never be blocked. Interestingly, Skye is the first development since Purdy’s Wharf to take advantage of the incredible view of Halifax Harbour. There are very few residents of HRM (IMO) that go to Citadel Hill for the view. The existing viewplanes legislation protects views from citadel hill and this development does not encroach on those views. The more I look at this development the more I think it should get the green light.

The Cogswell St. interchange is not a dumping ground for everything from tall condominiums to arenas. If you look at the footprint you will see how small it really is. I have heard comments about putting the stadium there. Once the existing streets are reconfigured for that site there will be very little land available for development. To maximize the site the streets (north-south) must be rearranged to open up the interior space. When this is done there will be significant traffic bottlenecks.

[someone123]

The Cogswell St. interchange is not a dumping ground for everything from tall condominiums to arenas.

I agree. Even if it were gigantic, it's not available. It is an interchange that currently carries traffic and there are no firm plans to dismantle it. And even if it were dismantled, this developer would not own that land. And even if he owned the land, we'd still have most of the same people complaining that the building was too tall...

I have a soft spot for things that are wrong on so many levels.

[Jstaleness]

I still would like to see some professional renderings. If these are to look like sails than it can't be box shaped like the current rendering. Twin Burj Al Arab's maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burj_Al_Arab_Dubai.jpg

All jokes aside though, this is getting a lot of attention. I hope that this is a true proposal and not just a vision that will never be built.

[Jonovision]

The roof height for these towers is planned at 150m plus mechanical and whatever roof feature they add, so in reality it will be around 160m tall.

I believe they are planning an official launch, with a big public meeting within the next month. This will have new renderings as well to help clarify the design.

And they will be at VivaCity on Tuesday to discuss if anyone wants to come out and talk to them.

[fenwick16]

It will be interesting to see more detailed renderings. However, I thought the ramparts maximum was a strict Halifax bylaw - am I wrong?

One question: if this was proposed in Dartmouth where the ramparts maximum restriction doesn't exist then wouldn't it have a better chance of being considered?

[someone123]

This building is under construction in London:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Shard_London_Bridge_Complete.jpg
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_London_Bridge)

Somebody should let them know that this 310 meter tower is unacceptable -- there are heritage buildings nearby and the tallest building in the neighbourhood is only 142 meters!

[Empire]

It will be interesting to see more detailed renderings. However, I thought the ramparts maximum was a strict Halifax bylaw - am I wrong?

One question: if this was proposed in Dartmouth where the ramparts maximum restriction doesn't exist then wouldn't it have a better chance of being considered?

If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.

[halifaxboyns]

What I found interesting was not the people, but the process... they had broad public consultation, they have view planes, they have a lot of development rules, but not a lot of specific design criteria, they have height restrictions. What was missing from the article was what kind of controls they have in Gas Town and Granville Island, for example. The article was pointed out to by someone who thought that Halifax in 2011 is where Vancouver was in their planning cycle in the early or mid 1990s.

That's a very interesting point. I think Gastown falls under the downtown east side bylaw or plan, whereas Granville Island, I'm not sure about. The link I posted to the downtown plan (that had the map) should allow you to back track into the main downtown policy/plans/bylaw listing.

I think the efforts being made for a regional core consolidated LUB (that will be along the same lines as HbD) would certainly agree with your point on design criteria. My only hope is that for the low density residential areas, they won't invoke much design rules. That was the problem here in Calgary when infill development (mainly single detached dwellings) started in the inner city. The hope was to get top quality homes to raise the tax base, which has been very successful. But the process and policy has caused many appeals boil down to 'your house is bigger than mine, I don't like it'. That's why it can take up to 6 months to get a permit for a house in the inner city...yup, 6 months. These situations are rare (may be 3 out of every 10), but still...

[halifaxboyns]

If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.

It was originally part of the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy. But with HbD it did put the rule into the downtown LUB. So it would be a part of the downtown Bylaw.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This building is under construction in London:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Shard_London_Bridge_Complete.jpg
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_London_Bridge)

Somebody should let them know that this 310 meter tower is unacceptable -- there are heritage buildings nearby and the tallest building in the neighbourhood is only 142 meters!

Hilarious, looks like the building in North Korea.

[RyeJay]

Hilarious, looks like the building in North Korea.

Quite the knee-slapper.

Whatever this skye discussion is turning into, I hope the fact of this site's immanence with emptiness weighs heavily on your minds. This site could easily be developed, given the available demand in the market. Both the city and the developer are to blame in this case--but the placement of blame does not move a development forward.

I support the Skye proposal. I don't think such a distinguished landmark must be limited to being infrastructure of public use, such as the CN Tower in Toronto. These residential towers are simply allowing more people to live downtown, which is what we want, in a sophisticated home, which is what they want. Why turn up our noses?

Large, skyline-breaking, iconic buildings that may be geared toward use by the public have a better case for picking Quinpool.

[resetcbu1]

Quite the knee-slapper.

Whatever this skye discussion is turning into, I hope the fact of this site's immanence with emptiness weighs heavily on your minds. This site could easily be developed, given the available demand in the market. Both the city and the developer are to blame in this case--but the placement of blame does not move a development forward.

I support the Skye proposal. I don't think such a distinguished landmark must be limited to being infrastructure of public use, such as the CN Tower in Toronto. These residential towers are simply allowing more people to live downtown, which is what we want, in a sophisticated home, which is what they want. Why turn up our noses?

Large, skyline-breaking, iconic buildings that may be geared toward use by the public have a better case for picking Quinpool.

I think these towers would be groundbreaking and iconic in our skyline and like mentioned a few times lately, not all high-rise development need be office. Honestly they remind me a little of the WTC towers just IMO.

[halifaxboyns]

My worry on this site is the developer. The developer came forward with Twisted Sisters, as a 'landmark' proposal. He went through the riger of the approvals process and if I'm not mistaken even an appeal but won. Great...but what do we have now? Nothing...

So now just as his existing approval still stands (but requires an extension to the commencement date since it's passed) - he comes forward with this proposal. It's hard to take the developer seriously. It makes me nervous that he's pulling a typical ploy that happens out here in Alberta.

Developer A walks in with a great idea - revolutionary, that will change a community. Fights through all the NIMBY and gets the approval - instantly, the land value goes up because this proposal he's put forward is supposed to be so great. But then, he puts the land and approval up for sale, makes a huge profit and disappears. Leaving Developer B having spent all his $ to make Developer A's project move forward. So then Developer B might build it, or might come up with his own 'even more dreamy idea', get the approval, land value goes up, Developer B sells the land and the process starts all over again...

I get the sneaking fear that this maybe nothing but a mechanism to make the land more valuable to sell at a huge profit. I find it unlikely that this will get built. That's just been my experience. I remember working in Fort Mac and the guy's came in proposing Bond Towers - these huge towers to go in the middle of the downtown. They talked a big talk, yet to this date - NOTHING. They applied for an extension to their permit approval, which was granted and then when it lapsed, they applied for another one but nothing has happened...this is why I view this proposal with a level of doubt.

[Chadillaccc]

Even if this proposal doesn't see the light of day, Halifax will see an icon under construction soon. The city is doing great right now, and with the DND contract, it's gonna be awesome! Do not lose hope my fellow Canadians! Halifax will rise again! (literally :) )

[Empire]

Even if this proposal doesn't see the light of day, Halifax will see an icon under construction soon. The city is doing great right now, and with the DND contract, it's gonna be awesome! Do not lose hope my fellow Canadians! Halifax will rise again! (literally :) )

Thanks, it is nice to see support from the other end of the country. Halifax and Vancouver have a lot in common. Vancouver has done a great job managing tremendous growth while maintaining a beautiful city.:tup:

I would like to see some of that 'can do' spirit foster in Halifax.

[mcmcclassic]

Downtown twin towers to incorporate 'visionary' design

United Gulf Developments Ltd. says snazzy lobby will give property iconic status

Developers of the proposed $350-million Skye Halifax project have added a new element to the structure that they say will elevate it to iconic status.

The proposed 48-storey towers at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets — bent to look like twin sails catching the wind — will be connected via a giant, 13,000-square-foot lobby that will have 66-foot high walls and two large glass-like balls that appear to be suspended from the ceiling.

Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said the balls will give off a glass illusion and appear to be different colours depending on the time of day and available lighting.

Peter Clewes, out of Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance, designed the “visionary” atrium.

“It’s very creative and very unique. I haven’t seen it actually done anywhere,” Saberi said, noting the hope is to have the lobby become the focal point for downtown residents and visitors alike.

“We are hoping for that wow factor,” he said. “We are hoping for that experience that it creates, and the rooms from hotel and some of the residences that are going to be above it. They are going to be overlooking that lobby and there will be a lot of action in that lobby. It’s a lobby for the (buildings), the restaurants are going to be overflowing into it, and there will be seating outside.”

At 85 feet per tower, the buildings will have a smaller footprint than its predecessor, the controversial Twisted Sisters project that was scuttled earlier this year in favour of Skye Halifax.

Rest of story in the link below-

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/26354-downtown-twin-towers-incorporate-visionary-design

Well they seem to have big hopes for this project. Let's hope that their less than stellar track record on building something on this site doesn't kill it. I'd like to see these two towers go up -- imagine the look on Phil Pacey's face if they broke ground on these guys...:haha:

[Halifax Hillbilly]

No. The site isn't in the view planes. The bylaw simply does not apply, aside from suggesting that this actually is a good site for a tall building.

The way the view planes were created doesn't suggest this is a good site for a tall building, it suggests it's a site where you can build a tall building. It's quite clear the urban design implications of the view planes were not well thought out - I'd hardly take their absence as an endorsement for tall buildings, rather it's a lack of a restriction.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

If may be interesting to discover the rampart restriction is merely a recommendation. This proposal will certainly get clarifaction.

The rampart maximum is not a reccomendation, it is policy. It is part of the Land Use By-law for the Peninsula. It has been continued, along with the viewplanes, as part of the new Planning Strategy for Downtown (HRMbyDesign).

This is the single biggest thing stopping this proposal. Council can not legally enter into a development agreement that violates the Municipal Planning Strategy or Land Use By-law. That's what all the URB appeals and court cases from the Heritage Trust have been about: will the development violate the by-laws? So far only one development, the Midtown, was overturned on appeal. The Midtown was overturned based on it's height in relation to the Citadel, not view planes.

This project (I'm assuming it breaks the rampart maximum by quite a bit) can only be approved if Council first changes both documents to remove or amend the rampart maximum. That's a long process - minimum a couple of months, realistically probably six or more. Plus, are councillors going to jump on board and rework a long-standing provision, that they just reapproved a couple of years ago through HRMbyDesign? I find it unlikely.

If United Gulf is under the impression that the rampart maximum is a mere recommendation, they are delusional and wasting a lot of time and money. Since this is a $350 million 'proposal' I would hope they know the basic policy they're dealing with, which leads me to believe this is not a very serious propsal. As many others have pointed out they might be hoping to leverage an extension on the Twisted Sisters, or maybe trying to pump up the value of their property. If this turns into a real proposal I guess they like going to court and the URB, or waiting endlessly for unlikely by-law amendments.

For those who like policy:

Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-law

CITADEL RAMPARTS 26B

In addition to all other provisions of this by-law, no development permit shall be issued for any development within Schedule A that is greater than 90 ft. in height, unless such development will not be visible above the topmost line of the earthworks of the Citadel ramparts from an eye level 5.5 ft. above ground level at any of the specified viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel. Elevations and coordinate values for the viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel and elevations to the topmost line of the earthworks on the Citadel ramparts are shown on ZM-17 (Height Precinct Map).

Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy

[u] 3.3.1 Heights Framework [u/]

The maximum heights framework provides a rational and balanced height pattern resulting from the synthesis of a complex set of urban design considerations tailored to the downtown Halifax context including:

(g) upholding the Citadel View Planes and Ramparts requirements from the Land Use Bylaw for Halifax Peninsula.

[hoser111]

Downtown twin towers to incorporate 'visionary' design

United Gulf Developments Ltd. says snazzy lobby will give property iconic status

Developers of the proposed $350-million Skye Halifax project have added a new element to the structure that they say will elevate it to iconic status.

The proposed 48-storey towers at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets — bent to look like twin sails catching the wind — will be connected via a giant, 13,000-square-foot lobby that will have 66-foot high walls and two large glass-like balls that appear to be suspended from the ceiling.

Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said the balls will give off a glass illusion and appear to be different colours depending on the time of day and available lighting.

Peter Clewes, out of Toronto-based firm architectsAlliance, designed the “visionary” atrium.

“It’s very creative and very unique. I haven’t seen it actually done anywhere,” Saberi said, noting the hope is to have the lobby become the focal point for downtown residents and visitors alike.

“We are hoping for that wow factor,” he said. “We are hoping for that experience that it creates, and the rooms from hotel and some of the residences that are going to be above it. They are going to be overlooking that lobby and there will be a lot of action in that lobby. It’s a lobby for the (buildings), the restaurants are going to be overflowing into it, and there will be seating outside.”

At 85 feet per tower, the buildings will have a smaller footprint than its predecessor, the controversial Twisted Sisters project that was scuttled earlier this year in favour of Skye Halifax.

Rest of story in the link below-

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/26354-downtown-twin-towers-incorporate-visionary-design

Well they seem to have big hopes for this project. Let's hope that their less than stellar track record on building something on this site doesn't kill it. I'd like to see these two towers go up -- imagine the look on Phil Pacey's face if they broke ground on these guys...:haha:


Just great! Two glass balls below the phallic tower.... :D

[Jonovision]

Honestly, I love the balls. I saw them a few weeks ago and they were what got me really excited and on board with the project. Halifax has nothing like this and it would be a great piece of modern architecture for the city.

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/317701_263527277018499_222364611134766_660389_1231812489_n.jpg

[someone123]

The way the view planes were created doesn't suggest this is a good site for a tall building, it suggests it's a site where you can build a tall building. It's quite clear the urban design implications of the view planes were not well thought out - I'd hardly take their absence as an endorsement for tall buildings, rather it's a lack of a restriction.

Right, but it is a "good" site in the sense that it has less of an impact on views and was part of an original compromise to allow taller buildings in some locations. Either that or the view planes were poorly designed.

This does violate the ramparts bylaw but that is one of the worst HRM bylaws in that it has a huge side effect (no tall buildings anywhere downtown) but a very narrow purpose (make sure that somebody standing in the parade square inside the Citadel can't see anything). I do not think it is reasonable or helpful and I think it should be thrown out, along with the ill-conceived idea that "heritage" means banning modern architecture. I believe that some heritage advocates have turned it into a "sacred cow" because they recognize that it is one way to prevent highrise construction downtown. Banning tall buildings may or may not be a good idea, but it should be debated on its own merits.

Bylaws have been changed frequently in anticipation of particular developments and I'm sure United Gulf is aware of the situation. Even if we suppose they do intend to build this, why would they promote it by stating that it has a low chance of success or a painful approval process ahead? They wouldn't, because they are marketing the buildings. Their absurdly optimistic assessments of the situation aren't by themselves proof that this isn't a serious proposal.

[FuzzyWuz]

Just great! Two glass balls below the phallic tower.... :D

Darn. Beat me to it.

Not that I'd ever stoop so low as to make that joke.


...never. :rolleyes:

[spaustin]

This project might have "balls" but what it really needs is "brains." Hillbilly sums it up nicely, it's difficult to see this one as being remotely credible.

[pblaauw]

If you're going to spend that kind of cash on 48-storey towers, shouldn't you brag about how "iconic" the TOWERS will be? No one at King's Wharf is bragging about how "iconic" the marina's going to be. Or what about the water taxi? :rolleyes:

I'm sure the lobby will be awesome. When I leave the lobby, I'll look up at the towers and think how ugly they are. :)