SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] Macara Presidio | 26m | 8 fl | Proposed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219938)

Dmajackson Dec 2, 2015 12:18 AM

[Halifax] Macara Presidio | 26m | 8 fl | Proposed
 
http://41.media.tumblr.com/61e6c7a73...jdq8o1_500.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

Starting to think all of the North-End will fill with dull-coloured buildings? How about red brick and army colour to mix it up! :psycho:

New proposal for Gottingen & Macara. This one is a 71-unit residential building with ground floor commercial (~3'500 sq ft) and three two-bedroom townhouses.

More information is available on HALIFAX's planning website;

Case 20149 Details

beyeas Dec 2, 2015 1:51 AM

The developer must be looking to capitalize on the rousing success of the green glass in the new Sister's building

:stunned:

fenwick16 Dec 2, 2015 2:30 AM

I certainly hope those colours will change.

Army colours is a good way to describe it. Maybe it wouldn't look so bad if it were solid army colours, but camouflage, yikes.

someone123 Dec 2, 2015 3:48 AM

Colours aside it's a pretty solid proposal. Nice scale and undeniably better than what's there now.

Dmajackson Apr 19, 2017 4:08 PM

This is still making it's way through the approval process. It looks like they have dropped the army colours.

http://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/west/...18Item1311.pdf

Keith P. Apr 19, 2017 9:40 PM

The report regarding the Macara development just makes me shake my head. The public session was over a year ago and all it had were negative things. Then the staff report is page upon page of bureaucratic bafflegab that I doubt Council members even read.

What does all this cost in terms of staff time, uncertainty, and undue delay? Surely there is a better way.

someone123 Apr 19, 2017 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7778048)
The report regarding the Macara development just makes me shake my head. The public session was over a year ago and all it had were negative things. Then the staff report is page upon page of bureaucratic bafflegab that I doubt Council members even read.

What does all this cost in terms of staff time, uncertainty, and undue delay? Surely there is a better way.

I do think it's inefficient to do so much work on a case-by-case basis, or give the impression that public consultations are there for the uninformed to critique new developments or complain about all development. The Centre Plan is supposedly meant to address this problem.

In any case there is impressive amount of development happening along Gottingen, and it is badly needed.

Colin May Apr 20, 2017 12:37 AM

No doubt the population on the peninsula will continue to decline.
Bedford west is the boom area.

IanWatson Apr 20, 2017 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7778048)
The report regarding the Macara development just makes me shake my head. The public session was over a year ago and all it had were negative things. Then the staff report is page upon page of bureaucratic bafflegab that I doubt Council members even read.

What does all this cost in terms of staff time, uncertainty, and undue delay? Surely there is a better way.

The better way is to get Centre Plan passed. Then these things can be done as-of-right or with streamlined design review like they are downtown.

When you go through a planning application--any development agreement or rezoning--that bureaucratic bafflegab is absolutely necessary. These are legal processes and open to appeal to the UARB. That detailed analysis is necessary to defend against appeals.

stevencourchene Apr 20, 2017 12:26 PM

Don't you find the renderings for the development is very similar to st. Joseph square on gottigen and Russell street.

Can't we create a buliding worth talking about something more unique considering they have a very similar st Joseph square basically across the street.

Keith P. Apr 20, 2017 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson (Post 7778577)
The better way is to get Centre Plan passed. Then these things can be done as-of-right or with streamlined design review like they are downtown.


But the Centre Plan is hugely flawed. It should not be passed in its present form.

fenwick16 Apr 20, 2017 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson (Post 7778577)
The better way is to get Centre Plan passed. Then these things can be done as-of-right or with streamlined design review like they are downtown.

When you go through a planning application--any development agreement or rezoning--that bureaucratic bafflegab is absolutely necessary. These are legal processes and open to appeal to the UARB. That detailed analysis is necessary to defend against appeals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7778593)
But the Centre Plan is hugely flawed. It should not be passed in its present form.


I agree with both of these comments.

One thing that I would like to see in the Centre Plan are areas set aside in commercial/industrial type areas where signature buildings of up to say 100 meters (32 - 33 residential storeys, or 25 office storeys) are permitted. In order for a project to qualify, then it would have to be an outstanding project, otherwise the limit may be 20 storeys (60 meters).

halifaxboyns Apr 20, 2017 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 7778628)
In order for a project to qualify, then it would have to be an outstanding project, otherwise the limit may be 20 storeys (60 meters).

But outstanding to who? The Centre Plan could be passed in it's current form with an understanding that further work and refinement is coming. No plan is perfect and frankly is out of date the moment it passes.

The public comments, to me as a planner, frankly show the need for Halifax to have something along the lines of a planning 101 program. But as much as such a thing may be offered; you can't force everyone to take it. The centre plan won't stop people who just don't want to be informed from staying out of the loop and having their opinions. Just have to be prepared for folks like that and ready to defend the recommendations.

Colin May Apr 20, 2017 4:40 PM

I would like to see a few 50 storey buildings, 3 would be good and then we can all look forward to planning to increase the number of families on the peninsula.
The new medical centre in Bayers Lake is a smart decision, perhaps a 50 storey building is planned for close by.

fenwick16 Apr 20, 2017 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns (Post 7778761)
But outstanding to who? The Centre Plan could be passed in it's current form with an understanding that further work and refinement is coming. No plan is perfect and frankly is out of date the moment it passes.

The public comments, to me as a planner, frankly show the need for Halifax to have something along the lines of a planning 101 program. But as much as such a thing may be offered; you can't force everyone to take it. The centre plan won't stop people who just don't want to be informed from staying out of the loop and having their opinions. Just have to be prepared for folks like that and ready to defend the recommendations.


Outstanding as determined by the Design Review Committee. Let's be serious if it is passed in it's current form then little to no changes will be coming in the next 10 - 20 years.

fenwick16 Apr 20, 2017 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin May (Post 7778869)
I would like to see a few 50 storey buildings, 3 would be good and then we can all look forward to planning to increase the number of families on the peninsula.
The new medical centre in Bayers Lake is a smart decision, perhaps a 50 storey building is planned for close by.

I am not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic (no offense, I am just not sure). Honestly I wouldn't want to live at or near the top of a 50 storey tower and so I would rather see two 25 storey towers or three 17 storey towers than one 50 storey tower. 50 storey towers are a dime a dozen in the GTA and such heights don't really impress me.

On the other hand if a developer came by and wanted to build something eye appealing and impressive but needs 30 storeys to justify it, then let's have that option. I am thinking of something like below, but 100 meters.

I think the Design Review Committee can decide between something outstanding and just a nondescript tower.

(source: http://chicago.urbanturf.com/article...n_updates/3166 )
http://chicago.urbanturf.com/images/..._rendering.jpg

Drybrain Apr 20, 2017 6:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 7778593)
But the Centre Plan is hugely flawed. It should not be passed in its present form.

It seems as if those of us who are rah-rah for tall buildings dislike the Centre Plan because it isn't permissive enough re: height, even as the Peggy Camerons of the world dislike the Centre Plan because they believe it will result in too much height.

So I guess it's a good compromise!

Keith P. Apr 20, 2017 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns (Post 7778761)
But outstanding to who? The Centre Plan could be passed in it's current form with an understanding that further work and refinement is coming. No plan is perfect and frankly is out of date the moment it passes.


Except our present anti-development Council is already using the draft plan's 20-storey limit as an excuse to torpedo any development proposal over that height. How can you square your statement with that?

fenwick16 Apr 21, 2017 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns (Post 7778761)
But outstanding to who? The Centre Plan could be passed in it's current form with an understanding that further work and refinement is coming. No plan is perfect and frankly is out of date the moment it passes.

The public comments, to me as a planner, frankly show the need for Halifax to have something along the lines of a planning 101 program. But as much as such a thing may be offered; you can't force everyone to take it. The centre plan won't stop people who just don't want to be informed from staying out of the loop and having their opinions. Just have to be prepared for folks like that and ready to defend the recommendations.

Apparently because you are a planner you know that 16 - 20 storeys is what is best for the urban core of Halifax/Dartmouth. Have you even read the draft proposal for the Centre Plan?

So as a planner give me a quick excerpt from your 101 planning course, why is a 30 storey tower too tall for King's Wharf? It was proposed and accepted; as a planner explain why this wrong? There are many sites within the Halifax/Dartmouth urban core where a 30 storey tall building won't cast shadows on parks or residential homes.

Dmajackson May 26, 2017 1:43 AM

Staff is recommending approval of this project. First reading is next week at H&WCC.


Case 20149: LUB Amendment and Development Agreement for 2858/2860 &
2866 Gottingen Street, and 5516/5518 Macara Street, Halifax

Empire May 27, 2017 6:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns (Post 7778761)
But outstanding to who? The Centre Plan could be passed in it's current form with an understanding that further work and refinement is coming. No plan is perfect and frankly is out of date the moment it passes.

The public comments, to me as a planner, frankly show the need for Halifax to have something along the lines of a planning 101 program. But as much as such a thing may be offered; you can't force everyone to take it. The centre plan won't stop people who just don't want to be informed from staying out of the loop and having their opinions. Just have to be prepared for folks like that and ready to defend the recommendations.

Limiting heights in the Center Plan to ~20 storeys will result in rash of chunky, squat looking buildings with economy finishes like this one on Barrington St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66278...7i13312!8i6656

TheGreenBastard May 27, 2017 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 7817026)
Limiting heights in the Center Plan to ~20 storeys will result in rash of chunky, squat looking buildings with economy finishes like this one on Barrington St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66278...7i13312!8i6656

*Shudders*

What a sad looking building. You wouldn't catch something like this being built in Toronto.

terrynorthend May 27, 2017 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 7817026)
Limiting heights in the Center Plan to ~20 storeys will result in rash of chunky, squat looking buildings with economy finishes like this one on Barrington St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66278...7i13312!8i6656

To be fair, I believe that building owes most of its banal design to its function as a military barracks. Not much cutting edge architecture to be found here.

Maple is ~20 stories and didn't turn out too bad.

Not that I mean to be an apologist for the height caps, I would love to see some variety and taller buildings.

Empire May 27, 2017 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 7817057)
To be fair, I believe that building owes most of its banal design to its function as a military barracks. Not much cutting edge architecture to be found here.

Maple is ~20 stories and didn't turn out too bad.

Not that I mean to be an apologist for the height caps, I would love to see some variety and taller buildings.

I think it is totally unacceptable that we can't expect quality design and materials for military buildings in Halifax. You would not see this in Ottawa.

Drybrain May 27, 2017 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard (Post 7817042)
*Shudders*

What a sad looking building. You wouldn't catch something like this being built in Toronto.

Of that era? There's lots of that stuff in Toronto. Toronto has a huge stock of mid-century buildings, some very elegant, but a lot very poor.

Whatever the merits of demerits of a 20-storey cap, I don't think it will necessarily lead to mediocre buildings. A lot of the better-looking buildings in the city (the Vic, Southport, Grainery, St. Joseph's, potentially Gorsebrook and The Curve) are well under 20 storeys. I don't see any direct correlation between quality and height.

Empire May 27, 2017 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 7817151)
Of that era? There's lots of that stuff in Toronto. Toronto has a huge stock of mid-century buildings, some very elegant, but a lot very poor.

Whatever the merits of demerits of a 20-storey cap, I don't think it will necessarily lead to mediocre buildings. A lot of the better-looking buildings in the city (the Vic, Southport, Grainery, St. Joseph's, potentially Gorsebrook and The Curve) are well under 20 storeys. I don't see any direct correlation between quality and height.

These are quality buildings?
By what measure?

Drybrain May 27, 2017 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 7817163)
These are quality buildings?
By what measure?

No, I mean those are similarly bad (GreenBastard said TO doesn't have crappy buildings like that).

TheGreenBastard May 28, 2017 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 7817176)
No, I mean those are similarly bad (GreenBastard said TO doesn't have crappy buildings like that).

They weren't built in the last year...

IanWatson May 29, 2017 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 7817026)
Limiting heights in the Center Plan to ~20 storeys will result in rash of chunky, squat looking buildings with economy finishes like this one on Barrington St.:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66278...7i13312!8i6656

Not sure that building can be used as an example of anything. It's a federal government build, and would not have been subject to any of the municipal planning rules. Even if it had been built to 100 storeys we would have probably been build with the same crappy design, because I'm sure the only marching order on that one was "we don't want to be seen wasting tax dollars, we need the absolute minimum cost per square foot".

Takeo May 29, 2017 3:16 PM

Do we know if this is going to be rentals or condos? I'm guessing rentals.

Metalsales May 29, 2017 9:58 PM

The ADM building was built to withstand a blast and secure the occupants. It was not meant to be pretty. I'm sure he public would have nothing good to say if they made it fancy.

As it was, the building cost much more than the average build. iIRC it was ~$60m....

Empire May 29, 2017 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson (Post 7818287)
Not sure that building can be used as an example of anything. It's a federal government build, and would not have been subject to any of the municipal planning rules. Even if it had been built to 100 storeys we would have probably been build with the same crappy design, because I'm sure the only marching order on that one was "we don't want to be seen wasting tax dollars, we need the absolute minimum cost per square foot".

Well the federal Gov. doesn't build crap in Ottawa. A large portion of the downtown, and Halifax in general, is used for Military purposes. Yes they provide jobs etc. but it is time they said thank you and they could start by providing buildings that contribute to the city.

IanWatson May 30, 2017 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 7818821)
Well the federal Gov. doesn't build crap in Ottawa. A large portion of the downtown, and Halifax in general, is used for Military purposes. Yes they provide jobs etc. but it is time they said thank you and they could start by providing buildings that contribute to the city.

Oh no doubt. I am not at all happy about how that building looks. The feds can and should have done better. But I don't think we can point to that building as any failure of municipal planning, because the feds don't have to follow municipal planning.

Keith P. May 30, 2017 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson (Post 7819262)
Oh no doubt. I am not at all happy about how that building looks. The feds can and should have done better. But I don't think we can point to that building as any failure of municipal planning, because the feds don't have to follow municipal planning.

Ah. That explains how they were able to build something taller than 4 floors.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.