A well-thought-out and well-written answer. :tup:

I'm not seeing the symmetry of which you speak, however. If you look at page 18 of the document linked by someone123 (South & East Elevations), it is apparent that the design is actually not that symmetrical. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in general, but in this case for my tastes the appearance of randomly placed blocks is not aesthetically pleasing. While I concede that it probably requires more skill to pull off this look while maintaining functionality and a good relationship to its surroundings, to me the overall appearance of the final product is a fail. Again, reminding me of a child's building block project, or in some ways (especially the black add-on) a circuit board.

That said, I am appreciative that it is not a bland glass face, as you've pointed out.

But that's for my tastes. I am actually glad that so many are pleased with the appearance of it, as the opinions of the masses are far more important than the opinion of an individual (me), when it comes to the appeal of a structure in such a visible location (SGR).

http://i58.tinypic.com/wjgbp2.jpg

Actually I didn't go thru the linked document and didn't realise that it wasn't as symmetrical as the rendering made it seem. I'm not sure I'm quite so fond of it now. :haha:

The south elevation isn't bad, but I'm not sure the east elevation is really working for me.

To be fair, I should note that for most of us, the view that will matter will be that from streetside. So, therefore I'll try to hold my final opinion until it's built... ;)

The Trillium owners are forming an opposition to this project. They had a meeting this past week and plan to work with the friends of Schmitville group. Some concerns are blocked sunlight, traffic and the canyon effect. They are saying many were told nothing over 6 stories would be built beside them.

Figures.... People stupid enough to believe that "nothing over 6 stories will be built in a busy downtown next to you".. Nice elitist attitude. Thankfully the city has a history of quashing that argument.

There's also a bit of irony here in that they're living in an even taller building that other people opposed when it was first presented.

In any case if HRM by Design allows for this then the height isn't really debatable and it's been public knowledge for a while.

Indeed! The most effective way for them to have prevented downtown from becoming too tall would have been to boycott the Trillium development and find homes elsewhere. If no one had been willing to buy the condos, I'm sure it would have been downgraded or cancelled.

That makes no sense. WM Fares owns the Trillium and is proposing this development.

Individual owners of the condo's not the building itself.

I have heard stories that many of the owners of units in the Trillium are not happy campers. Noise, rental units where they expected owners, stagnant resale. Don't know how true any of it is but this opposition doesn't really surprise me.

Wouldn't surprise me, I'd wager that many of the people (not all of course) have not lived in a city for a while and are coming from the suburbs to their downsized retirement condo. I'm sure many people expect their condo to be just as quiet as their home.

Also from what I've read it seems like it will take a few years to even break even when buying a new home/condo after all the costs associated with it and people don't want to pay the "new" price right away if someone has previously lived in it. I think that many of the complaints are entitled people with un-realistic expectations of what living in a condo is like.

If that's true, I have a very hard time feeling empathy for anyone complaining that their downtown multi-unit building has (gasp!) some renters in it.

My impression is that basically every condo everywhere has some number of people complaining about renters and noise. This includes people who move to big condo developments in busy parts of large cities. In this development there are constant complaints from people who basically seem to want to live in a multi-unit building in the city but never actually experience any impact from their neighbours whatsoever. It's completely unrealistic.

On top of this you have the people who are, say, schizophrenic and hear noises that don't exist, the paranoid people (we had a guy who literally keeps bizarre logs of his daily spying activities, types them up, and regularly emails them to the strata council), and people who are really complaining because they are prejudiced against their neighbours in some way.

My condo's annual meeting is coming up and, as they do every year, they are trying to ban rentals (which would be grandfathered for the existing property owners so would take a long time to have any impact) and ban smoking *inside* the units, which may not even be legal or enforceable. Most people who suggest these things have no idea that condos can't pass whatever bylaws they feel like.

For neighbouring development what I've mostly seen is that people get information from sellers or hear rumours from neighbours. Sellers are obviously a bad source for this type of information. I guess cities could be better about publishing and following plans so buyer can make informed decisions, but plans can change. People should understand that, unless they own all the land they can see out their window, they are not entitled to any views.

Fares built it, but technically now the Condo Corp made up of the individual unit owners own it. I think Fares kept the retail units and I assume still own some residential units for rent until they can be slowly sold.

Darn, it's bad enough that those suburban people lived in the suburbs, now they are coming downtown and complaining about urban living! Damn them! (Note: that was sarcasm)

The whole way we humans twist things and make up stories based on our own prejudices is humourous at least and a little scary in the worst cases. How do we know what noise these people are complaining about or what their backgrounds are?

My experience with condos are that they are usually better sound insulated than a comparable (albeit cheaper) rental apartment. If I were to buy an expensive condo I have an expectation that I'm not going to hear everything my adjoining neighbours are doing (use your imagination). I don't know if that's the type of noise they are complaining about, but I would consider that valid. If it's street noise or late night partying noise, then tough, as they should have done the research and known what that area of town is like. But, I don't know so I won't assume.

Views are an interesting topic here. When it comes to restricting height downtown, then we hate views. When it comes to a really tall building that we'd like to live in, then views are great. When it comes to a "dirty suburbanite" complaining about potential blocked views around them then they are being silly.

I think we all would enjoy a nice view from our high condo unit, and would all likely be disappointed if they invested their life's savings or committed to 25 years of monthly payments to a place with a view only to have it taken away. However, if it means that a building we want to see built has hurdles to cross, then they don't have a right to be upset.

Always an interesting read, this board.

The first sentence is nonsense.
The owners at the Trillium are well heeled, well known, and have downsized from large homes on the peninsula. - I have a list of the owners. If purchasers were foolish enough to believe the sales pitch that a smaller building would be their neighbour then they must have forgotten the golden rule - "Never believe the sales agent". You don't need a high IQ to realise that the adjacent 2 storey properties would eventually be razed to build another high rise condo/apartment building.
As for units being rental, it is obvious that some buyers never asked enough questions.
Buy in haste, repent at leisure.

I don't think it's so much that they don't have a right to be upset as much as that they don't have a legitimate right to demand that the outside world cater to their emotions. If someone saves up for 5 years for a dream vacation that they book 6 months in advance and it rains the entire time, they have a right to be disappointed even though they know that there's no guarantee of fine weather, even in an area where fine weather is common.

Absolutely agree. Therefore it's understandable that people about to lose their view would stage some sort of protest to see if they can prevent the loss. They are not entitled to it, but I can at least empathize with them to a degree, even if their motives seem a little selfish to the rest of us.

That said, it would never be a good idea to buy a condo based on assumptions. If a view is important to you, then research the area and see potentials for development. In this case, buy on the Victoria Park side or one of the higher units.

I've noticed that often when developers are doing multiple buildings in the same area next to a desirable view, they will do the ones further back, presumably so that potential buyers will think they are getting a magnificent view, then a year or so down the road, they build another one in front of it...

And so begins CBC's usual campaign against any new development:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ment-1.3287182


Whatchagonnado? :shrug:

Sit back and watch, everyone gets a say, and then it gets built. Happens every time. :surrender: