HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11541  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2024, 5:06 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,206
All new builds over 5fl. in the below zones should be required to have the capacity to expand to the max. height for their zone.

CEN-1
CEN-2
D-D
Cogswell
__________________
Salty Town

Last edited by Empire; Jan 23, 2024 at 2:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11542  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2024, 5:11 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,222
Unfortunately Cogswell won't get that, max is going to be about 96 metres due to rampart bylaws which no one seems intent on tackling.
However Piercey Lands, Mic Mall Mall redevelopment, Shannon Park, HSC annex, and other sites will definitely benefit from this change to higher FAR and elimination of (metres) in favour of floor count. Especially with the note that these CDDs/FGNs have potential for even greater height.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
Interesting the Cogswell District and Piercey lands aren't shown in the high density zones yet.... I am glad they will be allowing 40 stories, but..... maybe throw in a signature tower or two.... of even higher.... one can dream. I wish the legend would show permitted height or am I missing somewhere that is shown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11543  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2024, 6:00 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,425
These changes don't include the Future Growth Nodes (Mic Mac Mall, Joe Howe Superstore, Young/Robie/Almon, Mumford Road, Kempt Road, etc.) because those are going through separate comprehensive planning processes to establish servicing, new street networks, transit terminals, parkland, etc. and will have heights set as part of those processes. I've been hearing 50+ storeys thrown around for some of them, which makes sense to me. It does look shocking at first though to look at that map and see them held to 20m.

Some of these proposed changes make a lot of sense, some of them are disappointing.

I think the biggest worry for me is the pedestrian commercial streets (Gottingen, Portland, Agricola). The original thinking in Centre Plan was to preserve these areas as small-scale, attractive places to walk and shop, and put the density around them in support. I.e. while density and height are needed and I'm generally onboard with it, we're also allowed to hive off some areas to keep as they are. Even Vancouver does this.

I fear that the proposed changes means the end of these areas. That's not to say that some of the small businesses here won't survive in different incarnations in new buildings, but it's not guaranteed - new mixed-use building owners typically prefer tenants who can take a large chunk of floor area for long lease terms (e.g. Shoppers Drug Mart, etc.). We saw the effect of this on Brunswick where the commercial spaces sat vacant for near a decade waiting for "mainstream" tenants. At least in that case the street was previously void of life, so waiting was no big deal. If Gottingen or Agricola end up with vacant commercial spaces for 5-10 years it's going to be brutal. It also feels like a big slap in the face to the building owners who have been investing in the small-scale commercial spaces and revitalizing these streets to-date.

Though of course these areas are already in Centre/Downtown zoning so perhaps change was already inevitable, and perhaps things like the FAR requirements will temper the scale of change.

I'm also torn about the risk for displacement. Highfield Park being 40 storeys for example. On one hand, I'm sure those buildings were built to the lowest quality and have a limited lifespan. On the other hand, they are still some of the cheapest (of course, that's relative) housing options in the Regional Centre and upzoning them to 40 virtually guarantees their demolition. Again though, this may be tempered by FAR; Highfield is identified for FARs of 4.5 and 6.

On the flip side, there feel like some missed opportunities. Braemar Superstore (3 storeys) and Windsor Sobeys (9 storeys) should both be identified for height. I'd also like to see Lady Hammond at 9 instead of 7. I live right there and if we're going to have the disruption for development might as well get the most out of it.

The changes to ER zoning are interesting. Part of me is sad to see a push to redevelop these neighbourhoods. On the other hand, I think we're rapidly hitting the point where redevelopment is happening anyways. Up in the deep North End there are a number of projects where 1.5-storey post wars are being torn down and replaced with mega houses. If this is where we're heading anyways, might as well make it possible to get 4+ units instead of just one big unit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11544  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2024, 6:03 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,515
Most interesting. Thanks for that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11545  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 2:51 PM
egb egb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
Unfortunately Cogswell won't get that, max is going to be about 96 metres due to rampart bylaws which no one seems intent on tackling.
However Piercey Lands, Mic Mall Mall redevelopment, Shannon Park, HSC annex, and other sites will definitely benefit from this change to higher FAR and elimination of (metres) in favour of floor count. Especially with the note that these CDDs/FGNs have potential for even greater height.
I actually think the viewplanes restrictions are a defensible idea in that the views from Citadel Hill are legitimately nice. I genuinely don't understand the rampart by-laws though. Protecting the 'view of the sky a solider would have had when standing in the middle of parade square' seems pretty trivial. I get that Citadel Hill is a huge draw as a tourist attraction but it doesn't seem true at all that it would be ruined by being able to see buildings from parade square.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11546  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 5:56 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by egb View Post
I actually think the viewplanes restrictions are a defensible idea in that the views from Citadel Hill are legitimately nice. I genuinely don't understand the rampart by-laws though. Protecting the 'view of the sky a solider would have had when standing in the middle of parade square' seems pretty trivial. I get that Citadel Hill is a huge draw as a tourist attraction but it doesn't seem true at all that it would be ruined by being able to see buildings from parade square.
They are trying to create a realistic experience, one of the reasons cars and tour buses no longer park inside the citadel.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/334769190101
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11547  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 6:31 PM
egb egb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
They are trying to create a realistic experience, one of the reasons cars and tour buses no longer park inside the citadel.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/334769190101
I mean I get it but 'don't build tall buildings' has real tangible economic costs to the city in a way 'don't use this as a parking lot' doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11548  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 6:48 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by egb View Post
I mean I get it but 'don't build tall buildings' has real tangible economic costs to the city in a way 'don't use this as a parking lot' doesn't.
As someone who cares quite a bit about history and heritage, I do not care at all about standing within the confines of the Citadel and being able to pretend I'm some 18th-century colonial foot soldier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11549  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 7:05 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
Unfortunately Cogswell won't get that, max is going to be about 96 metres due to rampart bylaws which no one seems intent on tackling.

I could use a refresh on what the rampart bylaws are and how they differ (if they do) from other Citadel-related height restrictions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11550  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2024, 7:40 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I could use a refresh on what the rampart bylaws are and how they differ (if they do) from other Citadel-related height restrictions.
Viewplanes are specifically-defined "windows" from specific vantage points on Citadel Hill to specific features of public interest - George's Island, McNabb's Island, mouth of the harbour, Point Pleasant Park, etc.

Ramparts rule basically states that a building cannot be so tall as to allow you to see it from a defined height within the grounds of the fort.

I agree with other comments here: viewplanes are okay, but ramparts rule needs to go. If you're going to restrict development it needs to be offset by a tangible public benefit, and ramparts benefit is extremely questionable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11551  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2024, 4:21 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,979
NEW PROJECT

A building permit has been submitted for 352 WINDMILL ROAD, DARTMOUTH (at Parkstone). It's owned by Cemex Holdings Ltd. They're asking for 9 floors and 63 units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11552  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2024, 7:15 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,773
I almost forgot about that little corner lot. Would be cool to see them go higher than 9 floors given the view opportunity.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11553  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2024, 11:08 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,206
Potentially 40 storeys will be permitted at the Staples site on Gottingen @ Cogswell. It would seem this would exceed the rampart viewplane bylaw by about 20+ storeys. If this is the case, then the Cogswell St. Interchange district would be prime for height adjustment.

Gottingen @ Cogswell - Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6504285,...FTL0NSseZJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu


Interactive map:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478acf8709f54aa9b1ba2f356b30752b
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11554  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2024, 1:59 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,222
I noticed this too. Those 9.5 FARs this near to (and at elevation beside) Citadel Hill would certainly break the rampart viewplane. The cynic in me says that staff/council will shoot down any proposals that violate the viewplane saying ALL planning bylaws must be met not just the FAR/max story, and this zoning will be unattainable, but look pretty on the books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
Potentially 40 storeys will be permitted at the Staples site on Gottingen @ Cogswell. It would seem this would exceed the rampart viewplane bylaw by about 20+ storeys. If this is the case, then the Cogswell St. Interchange district would be prime for height adjustment.

Gottingen @ Cogswell - Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6504285,...FTL0NSseZJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu


Interactive map:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478acf8709f54aa9b1ba2f356b30752b
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11555  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2024, 3:18 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
I noticed this too. Those 9.5 FARs this near to (and at elevation beside) Citadel Hill would certainly break the rampart viewplane. The cynic in me says that staff/council will shoot down any proposals that violate the viewplane saying ALL planning bylaws must be met not just the FAR/max story, and this zoning will be unattainable, but look pretty on the books.
Why would staff propose something no one was even asking for just to shoot it down in future? I think if this goes on the books and becomes the new as-of-right, that'll be that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11556  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2024, 7:23 PM
new2halifax's Avatar
new2halifax new2halifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Location: B3H Halifax, NS
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
Potentially 40 storeys will be permitted at the Staples site on Gottingen @ Cogswell
Are the are any plans in the work for that corner?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11557  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2024, 11:57 AM
kzt79 kzt79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 359
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, or where it should go, but I enjoyed this article looking back at the early history of "tall" buildings in Halifax.

JOHN DeMONT: When 21-storey Park Vic was a giant on the Halifax skyline

https://www.saltwire.com/halifax/opinion...-giant-on-the-halifax-skyline-100933752/

"For the longest time, any building more than a few storeys high was owned by a corporation (the 12-storey Royal Bank Building built in 1960) or the Crown (the 11-storey Dominion Bank Building built in 1936) or was a place for people to lay their head, like the circa-1930, 15-storey hotel that we now know as the Westin Nova Scotian.

Then came a building boom that, though it may not rival today’s, was striking enough to earn a long, laudatory, front-page story in the July 10, 1966, edition of the New York Times with a lede that read “A $29.5-million downtown redevelopment project, together with new office towers, shopping centres, highrise apartments, subsidized housing and university expansion, is taking the wrinkles out of the face of Halifax.”

Before that, it was rare to see a Halifax building push into the heavens. Stephen Archibald, who blogs about the city’s build heritage, recalls that our apartment buildings used to be three or four storeys “at the most” and were built within existing residential neighbourhoods.

During the 1960s construction explosion — which bought us, among other things, Scotia Square, a new nurses residence at the Halifax infirmary, the Sir Charles Tupper Medical Building — apartment highrises began tentatively poking their heads out of the ground."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11558  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2024, 1:04 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2halifax View Post
Are the are any plans in the work for that corner?
Not that I am aware of. However, with a 40 storey height limit for that lot the sale value will likely jump exponentially.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11559  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2024, 4:14 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,979
352 WINDMILL ROAD, DARTMOUTH - 9 FL - 63 UNITS (from before the storm).


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11560  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2024, 5:40 PM
mleblanc mleblanc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2halifax View Post
Are the are any plans in the work for that corner?
Southwest Properties already owns that lot. I'd be shocked if they didn't have plans for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.