[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[IanWatson]

Just went through it. It's fixed!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Just went through it. It's fixed!

Great news!

[someone123]

There are some project updates going up to December 2025 here:

https://skyehalifax.ca/updates/

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are some project updates going up to December 2025 here:

https://skyehalifax.ca/updates/

This is good to know in the sense that we now have a confirmation the project has actually started beyond site prep.

That site features the funny clock design (which I wouldn't mind). It also includes this line:

"Artist’s renderings shown. Final design subject to change."

[HfxGuy]

As much as this site has taken forever and is finally getting started, I would love to see them submit an amendment for same design just with another 5-10 storeys. I’m not sure the zoning here received a boost from HAF, but you would think it’s possible considering we’re seeing 40 storeys in Dartmouth. They’re not in any viewplanes as far as I can tell so it should really only be limited by the citadel ramparts.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by HfxGuy

As much as this site has taken forever and is finally getting started, I would love to see them submit an amendment for same design just with another 5-10 storeys. I’m not sure the zoning here received a boost from HAF, but you would think it’s possible considering we’re seeing 40 storeys in Dartmouth. They’re not in any viewplanes as far as I can tell so it should really only be limited by the citadel ramparts.

HAF amendments didn't touch the Downtown Halifax Plan area. So no increases to hight here unfortunately. There is a viewplane that catches the southwest corner of the site (and goes overtop of Metro Park), but it's already accounted for in the positioning of the south tower.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by HfxGuy

As much as this site has taken forever and is finally getting started, I would love to see them submit an amendment for same design just with another 5-10 storeys. I’m not sure the zoning here received a boost from HAF, but you would think it’s possible considering we’re seeing 40 storeys in Dartmouth. They’re not in any viewplanes as far as I can tell so it should really only be limited by the citadel ramparts.

I hope some height is added to the Cogswell area and that there are some mixed-use landmark buildings there, not just a bunch of 20 storey apartments.

From a street level perspective I think Skye and Meridian will do a lot to fill out that parking lot infested area. I wonder if the new residents will raise demand for storefront retail along Barrington a bit. The "lower" downtown is starting to have a significant population. This wasn't so much the case a decade ago. Businesses mostly had to attract people to the area. There's nothing wrong with downtown drawing in people from outside but it's healthy to have a local base too, which for example will tend to help businesses during the slower periods.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

I hope some height is added to the Cogswell area and that there are some mixed-use landmark buildings there, not just a bunch of 20 storey apartments.

HRM has some massing examples of what could be possible applying the DH Zone or the CEN-2 Zone to Cogswell here.

The big constraint in this case is the Citadel Ramparts rules. Honestly, they need to go.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I hope they keep the clock feature.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

HRM has some massing examples of what could be possible applying the DH Zone or the CEN-2 Zone to Cogswell here.

The big constraint in this case is the Citadel Ramparts rules. Honestly, they need to go.

Thanks for the link. Yes, I am hoping they scrap the ramparts rules or carve out this area. I am not completely sure but I have heard some of the Scotia Square buildings even predate the rules and are visible. It's just not a good trade-off.

It's a separate concern and maybe a stretch but I hope the architecture reflects local context, aesthetics, architecture, geography, and history in a meaningful way. And that eventually there's some memorable public space. Some recent developments like Queen's Marque seem to have managed this to a degree although they all feature stripped-down modernism which at most has some nice materials and public art.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Thanks for the link. Yes, I am hoping they scrap the ramparts rules or carve out this area. I am not completely sure but I have heard some of the Scotia Square buildings even predate the rules and are visible. It's just not a good trade-off.

It's a separate concern and maybe a stretch but I hope the architecture reflects local context, aesthetics, architecture, geography, and history in a meaningful way. And that eventually there's some memorable public space. Some recent developments like Queen's Marque seem to have managed this to some degree.

Agreed on all points, especially your second paragraph. I honestly don’t hold out a lot of hope that this level of thought and consideration of our history will actually come into play from the City side of things, but maybe a developer or two (perhaps one who has an actual connection to the area over and above it being a place to make money) will feel that it is appropriate enough to put the extra effort (and cost) into it. One can only hope that it doesn’t become a generic looking area that could just as easily be mistaken for Robie Street or Bedford West when all is said and done.

[Keith P.]

The most recent posts touch on something that I’ve been wondering about. With all of the new and in many cases tall buildings being approved and built here in recent times, very few of them have much in the way of distinctive design such as we see elsewhere. Do architects used here get warned to shy away from anything distinctive? When you look at other cities the new buildings are often unique in terms of cladding or structure. We don’t get much of that here. It would seem the architects here could use some time here looking at pictures of new buildings elsewhere.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The most recent posts touch on something that I’ve been wondering about. With all of the new and in many cases tall buildings being approved and built here in recent times, very few of them have much in the way of distinctive design such as we see elsewhere. Do architects used here get warned to shy away from anything distinctive? When you look at other cities the new buildings are often unique in terms of cladding or structure. We don’t get much of that here. It would seem the architects here could use some time here looking at pictures of new buildings elsewhere.

I'm sure it's a complex topic but a lot of it is in the nature of the building. There are similar apartment towers going up in Ontario. They are different from say a high-end condo or a corporate HQ office tower. There are lots of older residential towers like Fenwick that are about the same, just built in the style of the day.

Some of the distinctive towers around here are very expensive and seem to have been designed for "investors", i.e., people parking money (unlike investments in companies, there is nothing productive going on; condos themselves depreciate). They are often $1-2M+ for even small units (500-700 sq. ft) with subpar layouts.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

... I have heard some of the Scotia Square buildings even predate the rules and are visible...

I've also heard Scotia Square pre-dates the ramparts bylaws. In fact, I heard that the ramparts bylaws were created in response to Scotia Square's construction: historic preservation advocates objected to the new buildings being visible from within the parade square in the Citadel.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I've also heard Scotia Square pre-dates the ramparts bylaws. In fact, I heard that the ramparts bylaws were created in response to Scotia Square's construction: historic preservation advocates objected to the new buildings being visible from within the parade square in the Citadel.

The ramparts bylaws might have made sense 50 years ago, but that ship has sailed. Nobody’s going to the Citadel for a view of the harbour anymore, and frankly nobody will care if they see some buildings from within the fort.

If there had been some move to preserve the old town and push development of highrise structures further north, I would say sure, keep them. But there has never been that kind of thoughtful insight in Halifax, and no cohesive planning element to end up with some kind of attractive, functional, and interesting city. Everything has been done piecemeal and almost exclusively to the business case of development, so it’s odd that they continue to cling upon this one piece of legislation.

Let it go and give Cogswell a chance to be great again (lol MCGA… extra lol as I detest DT and Co…).

And, make it an absolute, non-negotiable requirement that the Pentagon building be reinstated as an exact replica of the original (in exterior appearance only), but at twice the height. The location doesn’t have to be exact but the orientation and appearance (except for the height) should be spot on. For me, that’s something that I could be excited about. However my expectation is “meh”…

[Dartguard]

[QUOTE=OldDartmouthMark;10568213]The ramparts bylaws might have made sense 50 years ago, but that ship has sailed. Nobody’s going to the Citadel for a view of the harbour anymore, and frankly nobody will care if they see some buildings from within the fort.



In that vein Mark I wonder what the top out of the new Hospital will do for view planes from the West. Hospital floors tend to be taller than commercial or residential.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The ramparts bylaws might have made sense 50 years ago, but that ship has sailed. Nobody’s going to the Citadel for a view of the harbour anymore, and frankly nobody will care if they see some buildings from within the fort.

If there had been some move to preserve the old town and push development of highrise structures further north, I would say sure, keep them. But there has never been that kind of thoughtful insight in Halifax, and no cohesive planning element to end up with some kind of attractive, functional, and interesting city. Everything has been done piecemeal and almost exclusively to the business case of development, so it’s odd that they continue to cling upon this one piece of legislation.

Let it go and give Cogswell a chance to be great again (lol MCGA… extra lol as I detest DT and Co…).

And, make it an absolute, non-negotiable requirement that the Pentagon building be reinstated as an exact replica of the original (in exterior appearance only), but at twice the height. The location doesn’t have to be exact but the orientation and appearance (except for the height) should be spot on. For me, that’s something that I could be excited about. However my expectation is “meh”…

Not sure if that is true Mark, Halifax Citadel is very popular with torista, and the Harbour views are great!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Not sure if that is true Mark, Halifax Citadel is very popular with torista, and the Harbour views are great!

Are they, though? My personal impression is that they were largely compromised when the Nova Centre was built. Or maybe my standards are too high (?). On top of that, the view to the northeast, where Cogswell is located, was always (IMHO) the least attractive aspect of the view.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

In that vein Mark I wonder what the top out of the new Hospital will do for view planes from the West. Hospital floors tend to be taller than commercial or residential.

Good point. I wonder if that one showed up on the radar.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And, make it an absolute, non-negotiable requirement that the Pentagon building be reinstated as an exact replica of the original (in exterior appearance only), but at twice the height. The location doesn’t have to be exact but the orientation and appearance (except for the height) should be spot on. For me, that’s something that I could be excited about. However my expectation is “meh”…

Good luck with that.