Here's a before photo of the site (funeral home right now):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/...3f12378d_z.jpg

:previous: Not exactly an architectural gem.

For those people who were wondering about the 35' height limit around Lake Banook here is a PDF showing the affected area (from this proposal's information page);

Case 16898 Staff Presentation

height limit
 

Yeah - It's clearly outside the 35 foot height precinct, so sky's the limit ...

I really like this project. Hopefully dartmouth will do the right thing and support more projects like this.

cheers ...

I can't see anyone arguing against it
Hopefully someone will have a proposal for the empty lot beside the NEEDS store.

That's the old Ultramar site and it is in the 35 foot height precinct. A community shopping centre or market would be nice.

cheers ...

So...any idea when will we know anything concrete? :-)

Based on what I've read, looks like construction could be next year provided HRM approves the application this year.

Surprise, surprise ... there's a new community group forming to oppose this project;

Quote:

'It’s just too high' A 15-storey building has been proposed for the site of Walkers Funeral Home on Prince Alberta Road. This former Georgian-style home remains standing under the (funeral home) utilitarian exterior. The proposal has been put forward by Monaco Investments.... Published on July 5, 2011 By Joanie Veitch - The Weekly News Although she’s seen many changes in the area, one longtime resident of the upper part of Prince Albert Road does not want to see a 15-storey apartment building go up on the site of her childhood home. “When the rumours first started going around we were hearing that it was going to be a four- or five-storey building. Then when we heard it was to be a 15-storey building … oh my goodness, I didn’t know what to think,” said M. Eisener ...

Read More Here

Uh-oh, I feel the earth starting to wobble already... spinning off its axis!

shut the fu%k up already ,I am so sick of these people :hell: booohoooo it's to high , god damn it it's all these older folks who wanna whine and hold the rest of us back because they remember a fucking orchard and the city caves in, for god sake she must be so old she'd be dead before it was ever built so she'll never have to see it!

as if its the developers fault her family sold the damn place in the 50's too bad woman time to build someone elses memories for the next century... and this group BARA saying this is faliy oriented area with modest homes obviously don't hink people who live in buildings are modest or family oriented , lame excuse for not wanting it in your yard , just say what you mean don't sugar coat it you don't want your family /modest life changed or make any sacrifice for the better of a whole city, News flash every neighbourhood was an orchard or pasture at one point family oriented, small everyone knows their neighbour but citys grow up and so should alot of these cry babies!

So what do they mean when they say this old georgian building is 'still standing under the funeral home'? A foundation? Is it all there but 'out of phase' like on star trek? Cuz all I see is a funeral home.

Do I understand this story correctly? Are they saying that this:

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/media/p...ze_article.jpg (source: http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/News/20...ust-too-high/1)

was transformed into this?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/...3f12378d_z.jpg
(source: Dmajackson - posted in skyscraperpage)


It seems as though the damage was already done decades ago. Now let's get rid of the eyesore that stands there now and build something more decent (the 15 storey apartment building). These opposition groups are becoming totally unreasonable. That is no longer an "idyllic countryside" area, it is directly next to a major highway - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=307+Pri...023&gl=ca&z=16 .

I think that you are way over the top with these comments. She has a right to her opinions, and should be treated with respect. It's a commercial property, there are few limitations on what can go there. There may be some old wood under a current eyesore, nothing really to save. Please be respectful, particularly with your elders; they deserve respect.

That is right at Graham's Corner, as we used to call it. 15 stories is what, almost triple the height of anything near there? Sure there is a Superstore right there, and the condos and hotel, but that is a lowish density, residential neighbourhood. I grew up at the top of that hill (up Celtic) so I have to say I want to see drawings and such.

Like always, it will depend on the ground level, how it faces the streets, and the quality of materials for me.

A secondary consideration is that it will have to pass an extensive wind study to make sure it does not frig with Banook and the paddlers.

This isn't a super-tall (25-40 story) building that we are talking about. It is a moderate-rise 15 story residential (shorter floors than commercial) development. Sure there are considerations on wind impact on Banook, but it is outside of the 500 feet exclusion zone, so I'm not sure if unfavorable wind studies would even be admissable. This seems like a nice development that would probably have minimal impact on the lake, and attract decent tennants.

A common thread I hear from Nimby groups like BARA is we are not Nimby's, we are not against development just for the sake of it, we are just looking to protect our modest homes and residential neighbourhood. But then where does one build mid-rise residential? BARA and others would have all these built in someone else's modest residential neighbourhood? In industrial parks, next to highways? Sounds Nimby to me.

I live in a high-rise now, in central penninsular Halifax. It is a great place. I live in a great neighbourhood. I leave my lobby and walk around this and participate IN this great neighbourhood. Great people live in my building, including new immigrants, young families and older/disabled people who benefit from the accesibility of such a building. I, and the others who live in my building are PART OF this neighbourhood. I would not want to live in a mid-rise or high-rise where my front door dumps out onto a major highway, and my neighbours are warehouses and truckyards. I doubt many would.

Don't the residents of tall buildings deserve to live in nice residential neighbourhoods too, or is that now being reserved for only those who can afford to live in, or have the physical mobility to live in and keep up a house.

:previous:

Very well spoken posting.

Well spoken Terry.

This goes back to the discussion we had in one of the other threads about the HbD efforts that will be occuring in the hydrostone area. One of the problems which Jono and I have talked about in that discussion is that whenever people hear the term 'high density' - they instantly think of fenwick tower. That's come up time and time again, in public hearings, public meetings. We need to really get people away from that attitude, because having more towers that big isn't a bad thing. But you can also have a whole bunch of smaller 10 to 15 storey buildings and it still helps too.

I've been taking some notes about comments in here for when the regional plan will have to be redone. Just my own personal thoughts and a few selected thoughts from others, about a way to move forward with the regional plan, if I were able to have an input into the process. I go back to what we did with Plan It out here in Calgary: We had a lot of public meetings and speakers that talked about good design and integration of development, which the public could attend. I think information is the key to starting to change people's minds...

I'm in favor of development, and yet, reading the staff slides, C2 means:

•No height limit on buildings,
•No setback requirements or lot coverage limits,
•No architectural guidelines or design controls.

So it is all up to a push - pull argument/discussion between the developers and other interested parties in the community to moderate excess. That is the system we have over there, so the fact that people are concerned that a lot directly abutting a R zone is going to go from 2-3 stories to 15 stories is legitimate, I think.

Then they go back and forth and sometimes you end up with a better over all plan, like what has been happening with the St Joseph's property on Gottingen.

I don't think less of these people because they care about their neighbourhood enough to get involved with this discussion, for discussion it is, that is how this part of the process works.

I think you've missed the point of the staff presentation. The C-2 zone is what applies to the site now. If the policy changes are approved, they want to rezone from C-2 to R-4 (High Density Residential). They also would be applying to have approval through a development agreement - I'm taking this from page 10 of the 12 page staff powerpoint presentation.

None of the zones in any of the land use bylaws (other than downtown because of HbD) currently has any regulations (that I can recall) related to design. There may be some 'criptic' language on use of materials, but nothing like HbD which has gone into specifics and is a form based code. So if he didn't have to get a rezoning and it was allowed through the C-2 zone; then yes I could understand their concerns because no height limits or design requirements could create something not so great.

But on page 11 of the staff presentation, the planner clearly states:
"Harbour East Community Council will review the application and make a decision based on a detailed evaluation which will address matters including:

• Site & Building design,
• Relationship to adjacent land uses,
• Traffic impacts,
• Sewer & Water servicing capability,
• Adequacy of recreation & amenity space,
• Tree retention & landscaping, and
• Grading & drainage."

So this is where I find their concern over building height to be less creditable...I have a feeling HRM will probably ask the height be reduced. If they do, fine - it might make it more compatible. If not, I'm equally happy. But the proposal has nothing to do with the existing C-2 zoning - the application is to rezone to R-4.