Development Rumours

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Yesterday Regional Council initiated a process to create a "downtown gateway" for the triangle of lands between Cogswell, Rainnie, and Gottingen. Highlights include new public space, closing Rainnie to automobile traffic, and establishing a new height framework that goes from 3 storeys at the roundabout up to 24 storeys at the corner of Gottingen and Cogswell.

A concept site plan is on page 5 of the staff report: https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default...0806rc1512.pdf

I realize it's just a rough concept and may change but it's bizarre how much of that land they show as surface parking. Why bother putting a few dozen parking stalls next to a 20 storey tower? Presumably there would be some underground parking and those stalls could be added there, freeing up valuable downtown land for a better purpose.

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I realize it's just a rough concept and may change but it's bizarre how much of that land they show as surface parking. Why bother putting a few dozen parking stalls next to a 20 storey tower? Presumably there would be some underground parking and those stalls could be added there, freeing up valuable downtown land for a better purpose.

The staff report talks quite extensively about the possibility of multi-level underground parking, and how the steep grade actually makes it even easier to construct underground parking.

So yeah, it is strange how they still depict it with so much wasteful surface parking.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I dunno... does it really make that much difference? I mean, they are tucked away behind the buildings, presumably out of sight for the most part.

Question: If those surface lots go away, can they use that place for more 'building', or would the FAR limits just make it a moot point. In which case, what would you use the land for other than a private park/yard for the building residents (which could be nice if maintained by the owners, if they were willing to spend the cash to do so). Perhaps some mini homes for homeless people?


Source

[Nouvellecosse]

Yeah generally when people like me complain about surface parking it's because of one of two reasons (or both). The first being that having it face the street degrades the aesthetic and forces pedestrians to navigate through car-dominated space to access the building. It communicates to people that this is how they're meant to arrive and presents it as the norm which encourages driving. The other being that it wastes space that could be used for other buildings or amenities. But in a case where the parking is in the back and the additional land can't be built upon due to regulations I'm not sure whether it's better to have grass or surface parking.

On one hand, grass is a permeable surface and doesn't increase the urban heat island effect. On the other hand, it often requires toxic herbicides and pesticides to maintain it to the standards expected of such settings and requires energy for mowing. I suppose it just comes down to the wasted space being bad regardless if its the government to blame for bad regulation or if it's the designer/developer of the site. I suppose who's to blame doesn't really matter all that much. Well, other than where to send a strongly worded letter of complaint for anyone so inclined.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Question: If those surface lots go away, can they use that place for more 'building', or would the FAR limits just make it a moot point. In which case, what would you use the land for other than a private park/yard for the building residents (which could be nice if maintained by the owners, if they were willing to spend the cash to do so). Perhaps some mini homes for homeless people?

I'm in a midrise building with a courtyard that's used for green space, maybe comparable to some buildings around SGR in Halifax or what this Cogswell area may one day look like. There's also rooftop space and underground parking. With the density and land prices around here and the fact that there's already some underground parking, it seems silly to give up that bit of courtyard greenspace enjoyed by all residents here and trade it for 5% more parking. It would have made this building a bit uglier and less desirable in exchange for very little gain. Actually there could have been more street parking too but it was deliberately avoided and it also makes the area nicer. If you're visiting you park in one of the parkades.

The parkades are more secure and sheltered which you'd think people would like even more in Halifax than here.

(To bring up another tangent, this neighbourhood is not higher density than downtown Halifax but has rapid transit. Of course it's complicated, and it's easier to justify a line with 15 stops than 3 stops, but it makes you think...)

[terrynorthend]

I get it. It's not much parking, it's tucked interior on the lot. It serves customers of commercial businesses on the ground floors. It's a reasonable compromise.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I dunno... does it really make that much difference? I mean, they are tucked away behind the buildings, presumably out of sight for the most part.

Question: If those surface lots go away, can they use that place for more 'building', or would the FAR limits just make it a moot point. In which case, what would you use the land for other than a private park/yard for the building residents (which could be nice if maintained by the owners, if they were willing to spend the cash to do so). Perhaps some mini homes for homeless people?


Source

[someone123]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I get it. It's not much parking, it's tucked interior on the lot. It serves customers of commercial businesses on the ground floors. It's a reasonable compromise.

It makes sense if it's something like a loading zone. But 30-40 stalls in the rear are not really more accessible than a parkade and aren't adding a lot to the overall parking.

I don't think it would be proposed or allowed around here, and the city is nicer for it. It's not the end of the world, but it's subpar for an area like that. It looks like a design from 20 years ago or for midrises in a city 1/4 the size or for a semi-suburban area like mixed-use development in Clayton Park.

Consider the walk along Cogswell on the south side. It's maybe 50% streetwall, and 50% roads or parking.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

But 30-40 stalls in the rear are not really more accessible than a parkade and aren't adding a lot to the overall parking.

I'm not sure of the rationale that the builder/architect is using, but one thing to consider is that they may want to keep the underground parking for the residents secure, needing a card or code to enter, therefore it may make sense to keep all visitor parking on the surface. I don't think the surrounding streets would accommodate on-street parking as they are laid out, and additionally that would be less attractive than a hidden surface lot.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure of the rationale that the builder/architect is using...

I don't think this is based on specific architectural designs (except maybe the Mi'kmaw Friendship Centre), but is planning for the area... this is what is setting up the rules for the developers and their eventual architects to follow.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't think this is based on specific architectural designs (except maybe the Mi'kmaw Friendship Centre), but is planning for the area... this is what is setting up the rules for the developers and their eventual architects to follow.

The building massing and basic design is a placeholder as with the Cogswell Exchange presentation.

This site would be ideal for a Performing Arts Centre. Too much emphasis is being placed on mundane apartment buildings in prime locations. Keep the Centennial Pool, add a Performing Arts Centre, source a major hotel chain and provide ample plaza public space along with architectural significant residential buildings. Will the city commission two major projects downtown, (Cogswell Interchange and The Downtown Gateway with no requirement for quality of design or past heritage component?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't think this is based on specific architectural designs (except maybe the Mi'kmaw Friendship Centre), but is planning for the area... this is what is setting up the rules for the developers and their eventual architects to follow.

Right. My thought process is that planning is listening to the requirements or perceived needs of the developers, but of course I could be all wrong about it.

[LikeCranes]

I see Metro Mitsubishi on 230 Wyse has a fence around it and a developer name on the fence, sorry I'm posting from memory. But does anyone know about what may be planned there?

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by LikeCranes

I see Metro Mitsubishi on 230 Wyse has a fence around it and a developer name on the fence, sorry I'm posting from memory. But does anyone know about what may be planned there?

"Renovation of existing structure into new clinic for NSH-IWK." (as per building permit issued to the site last month).

On another note there is a proposal for a 118-unit building at 6100 LADY HAMMOND ROAD which is the parking lot for the Atlantic Central office building. Does anyone know which developer is behind this one?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm not sure of the rationale that the builder/architect is using, but one thing to consider is that they may want to keep the underground parking for the residents secure, needing a card or code to enter, therefore it may make sense to keep all visitor parking on the surface. I don't think the surrounding streets would accommodate on-street parking as they are laid out, and additionally that would be less attractive than a hidden surface lot.

Around here it's common to have 2 gates in the parkades for this.

[Musicman Halifax]

Is there any thread for the west end mall redevelopment? There is some news that can be posted about it.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

Is there any thread for the west end mall redevelopment? There is some news that can be posted about it.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...=249279&page=3

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

On another note there is a proposal for a 118-unit building at 6100 LADY HAMMOND ROAD which is the parking lot for the Atlantic Central office building. Does anyone know which developer is behind this one?

Well Dmajackson that is a great question. It turns out that 6100 LADY HAMMOND ROAD will be home to two 7-storey residential units of about 200 units total. These will cover the parking lot around the Atlantic Central building and possibly have some commercial at-grade along the street. The developer is Wadih Fares.



(seriously thanks to AllNovaScotia for the information. There are renderings on their site if you have a subscription).

[IanWatson]

I'm glad they're keeping the office building (at least for now). I had originally heard they were going to tear it down, which would be a real shame. We'll never build concrete buildings like that again, so every one that disappears is a loss.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

On another note there is a proposal for a 118-unit building at 6100 LADY HAMMOND ROAD which is the parking lot for the Atlantic Central office building. Does anyone know which developer is behind this one?

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Well Dmajackson that is a great question. It turns out that 6100 LADY HAMMOND ROAD will be home to two 7-storey residential units of about 200 units total. These will cover the parking lot around the Atlantic Central building and possibly have some commercial at-grade along the street. The developer is Wadih Fares.

You guys are so informative!

Thanks for the info. Presumably parking for the office building will also be contained within the underground for the residential?

[Dmajackson]

I'm not taking much faith in this project proceeding as noted below;

United Gulf has purchased 210-212 Lacewood Drive. They have submitted a development-only permit for a 34-storey building with a daycare and 32 residential units.

That is not a typo according to HRM ...