General Updates and News

[Dmajackson]

Garden Crest Apartments at 5881 Spring Garden Road (Summer Street north-west corner) is planning a commercial extension. The plan is to essentially build a street-level podium two floors high to house the existing restaurant, new commercial space, a residential vestibule, and 2nd floor office space.

This project will add new commercial to the west-end of Spring Garden Road and along with the plans for Carlton Terrace (Thread) next door this will add greatly to the north sidewalks already pedestrian-friendly area.

Google Streetview

Case 19050 Details

The project is considered a substantive amendment to an existing development agreement (from 1994) so it will require a public hearing at Halifax & West Community Council.

[someone123]

That is a nice project, and it's a natural way for the downtown to expand. I could see Spring Garden near Robie feeling more like Spring Garden and South Park in the future, if some of the proposed and rumoured projects are built.

There's a general trend emerging with owners adding retail spaces to existing buildings. This is likely to continue if the pace of residential construction keeps up and densities keep going up. If the population of the core were to, say, double (not actually unrealistic -- that amounts to only 2-3 years of growth for the metro area) the density of shops and amenities would go up a lot. The concentration of interesting, vibrant streetscapes would go up dramatically, and there wouldn't be so many dull stretches.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Garden Crest Apartments at 5881 Spring Garden Road (Summer Street north-west corner) is planning a commercial extension. The plan is to essentially build a street-level podium two floors high to house the existing restaurant, new commercial space, a residential vestibule, and 2nd floor office space.

This project will add new commercial to the west-end of Spring Garden Road and along with the plans for Carlton Terrace (Thread) next door this will add greatly to the north sidewalks already pedestrian-friendly area.

Google Streetview

Case 19050 Details

The project is considered a substantive amendment to an existing development agreement (from 1994) so it will require a public hearing at Halifax & West Community Council.

WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND SPRING GARDEN ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on this sidewalk in front of this building, the sun shines down on me in the afternoon. The additional development will block that sun forever.

2. I live in an apartment in Spring Garden Terrace. This development will block the view of the sidewalk from my kitchen.

3. This area is already too crowded and new commercial space will bring even more people around. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Spring Garden is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. Commercial space will bring more cars. There are already major traffic jams at all times of the day on Summer Street. Ok, I'm lying, but still.

7. Is this much height really necessary? Right now, the restaurant is on the ground floor and I just feel that this matches the neighbourhood more. Two storeys is just too much height. Can't this be achieved by adding half of a floor to the existing floor? Or better yet, maybe bury the whole thing underground.

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. Phil Pacey says no. Like a boss.

10. The world will end if this goes forward.

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND SPRING GARDEN ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on this sidewalk in front of this building, the sun shines down on me in the afternoon. The additional development will block that sun forever.

2. I live in an apartment in Spring Garden Terrace. This development will block the view of the sidewalk from my kitchen.

3. This area is already too crowded and new commercial space will bring even more people around. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Spring Garden is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. Commercial space will bring more cars. There are already major traffic jams at all times of the day on Summer Street. Ok, I'm lying, but still.

7. Is this much height really necessary? Right now, the restaurant is on the ground floor and I just feel that this matches the neighbourhood more. Two storeys is just too much height. Can't this be achieved by adding half of a floor to the existing floor? Or better yet, maybe bury the whole thing underground.

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. Phil Pacey says no. Like a boss.

10. The world will end if this goes forward.

^ and THAT is how I've felt about the anti whatever-is-currently-causeing-an-uproar people and whatever it is they're against- for the last 8 years. I think they have some sacred scroll with basic anti development commandments on it, to be ammended to be used in specific situations to apply to whatever it is that's current and "scary"

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND SPRING GARDEN ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on this sidewalk in front of this building, the sun shines down on me in the afternoon. The additional development will block that sun forever.

2. I live in an apartment in Spring Garden Terrace. This development will block the view of the sidewalk from my kitchen.

3. This area is already too crowded and new commercial space will bring even more people around. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Spring Garden is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. Commercial space will bring more cars. There are already major traffic jams at all times of the day on Summer Street. Ok, I'm lying, but still.

7. Is this much height really necessary? Right now, the restaurant is on the ground floor and I just feel that this matches the neighbourhood more. Two storeys is just too much height. Can't this be achieved by adding half of a floor to the existing floor? Or better yet, maybe bury the whole thing underground.

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. Phil Pacey says no. Like a boss.

10. The world will end if this goes forward.

I loved this. I realized it was a joke at number 2. Your first point could be considered.

[Dmajackson]

[deleted due to copyright complaint]

[Drybrain]

[DELETED DUE TO COPYRIGHT COMPLAINT]

Good news on all counts, except for the Doyle Street block, which would be a tragedy to lose to redevelopment. But I imagine that must be years away, since Fireside Restaurant has stayed put and renovated rather than move as planned, and several new business have opened up there recently.

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND SPRING GARDEN ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on this sidewalk in front of this building, the sun shines down on me in the afternoon. The additional development will block that sun forever.

2. I live in an apartment in Spring Garden Terrace. This development will block the view of the sidewalk from my kitchen.

3. This area is already too crowded and new commercial space will bring even more people around. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Spring Garden is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. Commercial space will bring more cars. There are already major traffic jams at all times of the day on Summer Street. Ok, I'm lying, but still.

7. Is this much height really necessary? Right now, the restaurant is on the ground floor and I just feel that this matches the neighbourhood more. Two storeys is just too much height. Can't this be achieved by adding half of a floor to the existing floor? Or better yet, maybe bury the whole thing underground.

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. Phil Pacey says no. Like a boss.

10. The world will end if this goes forward.

Amazing. If only you could see me applauding you right now.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND SPRING GARDEN ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on this sidewalk in front of this building, the sun shines down on me in the afternoon. The additional development will block that sun forever.

2. I live in an apartment in Spring Garden Terrace. This development will block the view of the sidewalk from my kitchen.

3. This area is already too crowded and new commercial space will bring even more people around. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Spring Garden is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. Commercial space will bring more cars. There are already major traffic jams at all times of the day on Summer Street. Ok, I'm lying, but still.

7. Is this much height really necessary? Right now, the restaurant is on the ground floor and I just feel that this matches the neighbourhood more. Two storeys is just too much height. Can't this be achieved by adding half of a floor to the existing floor? Or better yet, maybe bury the whole thing underground.

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. Phil Pacey says no. Like a boss.

10. The world will end if this goes forward.

I read this as I was eating my lunch and did a Danny Thomas spit take. My employer will be contacting you with the bill to replace my keyboard...=)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I read this as I was eating my lunch and did a Danny Thomas spit take. My employer will be contacting you with the bill to replace my keyboard...=)

[Dmajackson]

Upper Water among nation’s costliest streets
3 hours ago
the chronicle herald

Upper Water Street has been ranked as one of Canada’s most expensive in 2013, says a new report.

In its third annual report on most expensive streets for office space, Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. ranked Upper Water as the seventh-priciest, sandwiched between Rene-Levesque Boulevard West in Montreal and Portage Avenue in Winnipeg.

...

Read More on thechronicleherald.ca

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

[I]Upper Water among nation’s costliest streets
3 hours ago
the chronicle herald



Read More on thechronicleherald.ca

Seems like a pretty weak conclusion. Upper Water really has nothing on it except Purdy's.

[Dmajackson]

Westwood Group in conjunction with Teal Architects will be holding a Open House on February 10th, 2014 (4-6pm at 1475 Queen Street) for their proposed DHX Building Expansion (SGR & Queen).

Source : WestwoodGroup.ca PDF

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Westwood Group in conjunction with Teal Architects will be holding a Open House on February 10th, 2014 (4-6pm at 1475 Queen Street) for their proposed DHX Building Expansion (SGR & Queen).

Source : WestwoodGroup.ca PDF

The Design Review Committee will be introduced to this project next week (February 13th, 2014).

Pre-Application Package

The proposal looks great and while not large in any sense it will help expand the retail and urban feel of Queen Street in response to the library and sister lots being developed. One thing that is cool about this proposal is the easement requiring access to an in-block parking lot out back. Instead of ending the building at the easement line Westwood is building over the easement and continuing to the lot limits effectively blocking the view of an at-grade parking lot.

[Dmajackson]

Also at the Design Review Committee next week is the site plan approval for the commercial additions to the Brunswick Street Towers.

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/Case19058.pdf

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Also at the Design Review Committee next week is the site plan approval for the commercial additions to the Brunswick Street Towers.

http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/Case19058.pdf

It is good to see a couple of renderings in the document.

This is a good start. Hopefully something can be done about the blank concrete wall along Cogswell Street sometime in the not too distant future.

[kph06]

The two old homes at 1056 and 1060 Barrington Street between Green and Smith were torn down in the last few days. These were looking pretty sketchy and run down the last few years. These connect to a good sized empty lot on Smith, which when combined have the potential for an L-shapped building depending in land ownership.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kph06

The two old homes at 1056 and 1060 Barrington Street between Green and Smith were torn down in the last few days. These were looking pretty sketchy and run down the last few years. These connect to a good sized empty lot on Smith, which when combined have the potential for an L-shapped building depending in land ownership.

I dunno, I guess, but that's still kinda unfortunate. They were dilapidated, but there are still more pretty nice old vernacular houses slated for demolition eventually around there, including on Kent Street. I'm also afraid that the houses used as storefronts around that nearby intersection at Inglis and Victoria are potential teardowns.

It's a shame because so much of the neighbourhood looks like this, right next door to 1056. Tear that down, developers.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by kph06

The two old homes at 1056 and 1060 Barrington Street between Green and Smith were torn down in the last few days. These were looking pretty sketchy and run down the last few years. These connect to a good sized empty lot on Smith, which when combined have the potential for an L-shapped building depending in land ownership.

That is a real dame shame because they were the only interesting bits of character that part of Barrington had, you may cool them old and run down " sketchy " but the surrounding buildings aren't very nice looking.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I dunno, I guess, but that's still kinda unfortunate. They were dilapidated, but there are still more pretty nice old vernacular houses slated for demolition eventually around there, including on Kent Street. I'm also afraid that the houses used as storefronts around that nearby intersection at Inglis and Victoria are potential teardowns.

It's a shame because so much of the neighbourhood looks like this, right next door to 1056. Tear that down, developers.

On the other side of Barrington, there is so much wasted space. That Tim Hortons looks like it should be out in the suburbs somewhere, not in an area that ought to be more densely developed.

Those houses did look shabby, as do the blue ones further down the street. Would it kill these people to apply a new coating of paint everyone 30 years or so, just to keep things looking a little nicer?

Why the shabbiness? Is it just cheap owners/landlords, wanting to avoid rising taxes via increased property assessments?