[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C
 

Proposal by APL Properties Ltd to redevelop the office tower at the corner of Robie, Quinpool, and Windsor Streets into a two tower development with a common podium. The 11-storey building will face Windsor Street and the 22-storey building will face the Willow Tree intersection. The proposal will consist of 165 residential units, 11'500 sq ft of commercial space on two floors, and 166 parking spaces (160 below ground, 6 at-grade).

Initiation Report - Case 18966

A friend mentioned to me the other day just how awful that 6009 Quinpool building and parking garage are, and how awesome it would be to see them redeveloped.

Only problem I have is that the design, while miles better than what's there now, is pretty bland. Especially that podium.

That, if I remember was one of the first High-rise office buildings in Halifax and was quite something for the time...It used to be the BP then Gulf Oil building, I believe.

B/A - the predecessor to Gulf in Canada. The British-American Oil Company.

http://www.britishamericanoil.ca/history.html

Looking through the document, the only thing I dislike is the fact they don't have the basic renderings complete in full colour, and the majority of the cladding of the building states "brick veneer"... uuuuuuugh

The Quinpool Road Business Association supports this proposal. The stated reasons are for improving the iconic corner and increasing foot traffic.

Also just to clarify APL Properties is just another name for Armco Communities. So yes, the home builders responible for building much of suburban Halifax are looking to build high density brown-field projects.

Maybe this is their way of "giving back" to us density and urban supporters :haha:

Details page is up;

Case 18966 Details

NOTE: Both proposals have to come up with amended proposals that address the staff concerns relating to building height, shadows, density, and tower spacing before they can move onto public consultation.

I actually think this is a pivot based on market demand.

I've heard that some suburban developers are losing their shirts on some of these exurban/suburban developments; they're just not selling.

But there is a strong demand for reasonably priced downtown condos/apartments/housing, etc.

Homebuilders like this prefer the suburbs normally; cheaper, faster, less red-tape, quick turnaround, faster profits.

In what might be the first for development in Halifax the applicant was asked to revise their proposal and what they returned with was taller than the original! Armco is now proposing a 28 & 12 storey development. The proposed buildings are skinnier than the originals, have 201 units total, and an overall density of 592 ppl/acre!

Revised Site Plans

An online survey will be posted soon to get feedback on proposed policy changes and a public open house will be held on October 1st @ Maritime Hall (Halifax Forum).

I think that proposal looks quite good, actually. Just the thing to spiff up that corner as the current building/parking garage is somewhat of an eyesore IMHO. :tup:

Well, not terrible, not great. Vastly better than what's there now anyway, and a bit better than the first rendering (taller + slimmer is automatically better for something like these).

A bit disappointed that with this, and the eight-storey job and Quinpool/Vernon, we're only getting serviceable buildings, not great architecture that can really kick off the gateway to Quinpool. But I'm always wanting the best, and so often disappointed...

It doesn't look any slimmer. All they did from the previous is add six storeys. They have essentially said "We're going to address your shadow concerns by casting longer, but not narrower shadows."

Build the sucker, anyway. There will need to be bus shelter upgrades and a better system overall to mitigate increased traffic concerns.

It doesn't get any more boring than this. I think they need a new architect. This is a very significant corner and gateway. You will see this development from many vantage points and the developer clearly isn't thinking if they really try to float this. The need to look at Maple, Roy, King's Wharf etc. for a bit of inspiration.

Perhaps something elliptical with more glass? The Martello comes to mind.

Yuck. I find that building really ugly looking, that washed out purple colour is awful

Has Kassner Goodspeed ever done anything interesting or good?

I think that the renderings look pretty solid...

I also think that this is a safe choice; I feel that the buildings are going to look great no matter what but it isn't anything mind-blowing or a super unique style. Kind of like Vancouver's glass towers, they are pretty bland but there's lots of them and they make the city look nice as a whole.

And considering that there are NIMBYs by the boatload to deal with when it comes to anything over 20 floors (or God forbid, 30 floors), I think that this is definitely a step in the right direction for Halifax.

It's interesting to note that, while people tend to want stand-out buildings, many attractive cities are made up mostly of more modest buildings that follow local design conventions. Paris looks very nice but most of the apartment buildings in the older part of the city look similar. New York is like this too; Manhattan has tons of standard looking 10, 20, or 30 storey brick buildings. They're not all Chrysler Buildings and Eiffel Towers.

In Halifax terms I think we should expect a lot of solid but not earth-shatteringly novel residential buildings. When dozens and dozens of them are being built I don't think it's even desirable for them all to be dramatically different or attention grabbing. Some of the design trends in town (e.g. brightly coloured glass accent panels on the facade or balconies) are working out nicely and it seems like the overall quality and densities are going up over time.

Here is a survey the city has launched for the developments.

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/LandUsePolicySurvey/

This survey is all in an effort to limit height for this project.

The same thought crossed my mind for both of them. Seemed to have some tricky word play

"It is important to foster a mix of land uses on these sites while taking care to ensure such uses remain compatible with neighboring uses. I am supportive of a mix of commercial and residential uses on these sites"

Is that a compound question? If I support the second part will it be assumed that I agree with the premise?

I would say it's to gauge public opinion on the building heights. The fact that there is a "taller and slimmer if shadow effects are improved" or whatever is a step in the right direction. A lot of the questions are poorly thought out though. Only options for transport are walk, bike, or drive? Really?

I don't think the height-related questions are slanted either way, and the public has the right to express its opinion. Not everyone is going to want 28 storey towers on the site but not everyone will have a problem with that either. The "how far should apart should multiple buildings on a single lot have to be" and "how much do wind and shadows matter" type questions are a bit more interesting and probably more important at this point in my opinion. At the end of the day I'm pretty sure the planning department (/council) has the final say anyway.

I think it's interesting that these kinds of surveys focus so much on "Is it too tall? Is it not tall enough? How tall should it be?" questions, and nobody thinks to ask, "Is it ugly? How could it be less ugly?"

This is a horribly designed survey. What an amateur hour.

The questions are lengthy, convoluted, and unclear. Your typical citizen will have no clue what half of these questions are asking.

Also, the questions are quite clearly designed (or are "loaded") to be skewed toward a specific answer. For example, this:

I mean, come on. That question's basic preamble is basically saying: this dev must be a transition and thus its height limited. And then offers like 4 options to limit its height, and only one "escape" route for those who have no concern, which is also badly stated. The survey question is clearly skewed to impress upon the layperson the importance of selecting one of the height limiting options.

Nevertheless, everyone on here should complete the survey (and support this high density development! :yes: )

Well, they had the first information meeting on this and the adjacent proposal on Wednesday. Reports are that the usual suspects like Peggy Cameron (Friends of the Common) are revving up to fight it because (all together now):

"It's TOO TALL!!!!".

And meanwhile, the anti-development Councillor for the area, Jennifer Watts, apparently concerned that the proposals "are not of human scale" and are not constructed out of wooden sticks, was quoted as saying "We have a quite stable neighborhood in that area and there is some concern in trying to protect it. You can put height on this corner, but it's a question of the appropriate height and where that goes. I have some concerns."

In other words, let's get out the sawzalls and cut off some height because we can't have anything tall in this town no matter where it is.

Jaysus.

Thank you Keith.

I could have written the same report and I did not go to the meeting. I also would have been scared to voice my opinion because I can also bet the whole crowd was in a frenzy and would have shouted down anybody with a different opinion. I went to one of these meetings years ago and will never go again.

The same old NIMBY platitudes. This is exactly the area for intense density development.

And narcissistic too. Why must everything we build as humans reflect us? Why must this be "human scale"? How about Giant scale? That's what I want.

Human scale just means it interacts with the street well. For example, you could argue that the Empire State Building is human scaled, despite its huge size, because its street level isn't a giant wall, but a collection of storefronts and decorative elements that acknowledge that people use this building.

Too many people use the term "human scale" to simple many "short," of course, when it's a lot more complex than that.

When the term 'human scale' is used by Councillor Watts it means nothing over 2 stories tall.

or a hobbit hut. I feel like she's better suited for mayor of hobbiton but she would be too tall

Human scale can also mean meeting generally accepted minimum tower separation. I think you will find the tower sep on these is pretty low. I was told Vancouver set the tower sep standard based on "so if I walk out of my bathroom nekkid what can my neighbours see?" I think these kinds of things are important, eh?

Sure they are, but wouldn't a set of curtains fix that problem?

Amazing how our city councillors can come up with so much BS in an effort to not build any tall buildings in this city, eh.

In most old areas of Halifax/Dartmouth, we only have eight feet between two story houses (driveways), and oddly enough many bathroom windows look at other windows. I guess they weren't that Victorian.

To be fair, what you're dismissing as "BS" is the kind of urban-planning considerations deployed throughout the western world nowadays. I'm not saying I agree with Jennifer Watts on this in particular, but she didn't invent the term "human scale." See here.

I know that on this forum there are a handful of people who think bigger is always better, and modern cities should be all about enormous, monolithic, imposing skylines and shadowy skyscraper canyons, but that's not how most people want to live, in this or any city.

Even skyscraper enthusiasts should be able to appreciate the nuances of urban planning. And not just assume that people are NIMBY's because they want to pause and consider the implications of development projects.

+1. I'm also about 99% sure that 0 councilors had anything to do with the design of this survey. It looks more like something written by a staffer with too many deadlines or outsourced to a private firm or student.

By that argument, Waye, my two storey townhouse should have a min sep from my neighbours too as I also like to wander around my home "nekkid".

I think the regulatory regime in HRM permits 3m to the property line? I'm not bragging or anything, but that allows some pretty hi-def views!

Amazing how some people on this board will talk glowingly and longingly about Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, New York and then as soon as those places do something the posters don't like, discard that example.

Oh, come on, Dry. Where's your sense of humour? I was getting tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic on the line re human scale. Thought "Giant scale" was a dead giveaway on that count.

I'm fine with human scale, so long as we use the following font when mentioning concept:
HUMAN SCALE.

Who said anything about giant scale? I'm totally fine with merely HUMAN SCALE.. I'm cool with urban planning practices.

Ha.

Actually, I didn't have yr post on mind when I wrote that--was thinking of someone on here a few days ago who suggested that 'friendly' buildings aren't for cities and that we should build more monolithic towers that make us 'feel small.'

:yeahthat:

"Friendly buildings aren't for cities" LOL! I didn't see that commentary. Sounds legendary, however.

What defines human scale? Isn't that what set-back rules are for?

Is a 2 story house human scale? I wouldn't jump off of it.

Maybe we can get Watts to be the official tester of that aspect. :diablo:

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this PDF contains a few more renderings of the building: http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...g-Package1.pdf

Wasn't this originally 28 floors? What happened to the... 20 floors?

Isn't this a different development (6112 Quinpool)?

Here's the original revised proposal (6009 and 6017 Quinpool).

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...610ca11112.pdf

Oops! You are right, wrong thread.