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

[beyeas]

Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., says there will be a development at the former Tex-Park site in downtown Halifax, it just won’t be the originally planned Twisted Sisters. (Ted Pritchard / Staff)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1208072.html

[fenwick16]

Thanks for posting. It would be good to see it straightened out. I didn't really like the twisting aspect of the proposal and it would just add cost needlessly.

[ScovaNotian]

Wouldn't a change of plans invalidate the development agreement and make the lot fall under the HbD height restrictions?

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for posting. It would be good to see it straightened out. I didn't really like the twisting aspect of the proposal and it would just add cost needlessly.

I think that was just a play on words for the title. I doubt that the twist is actually gone from the towers. I can't really understand how he will "knock our socks off" without having to change the development agreement, but I do like surprises!

Here is the full article.


Straightening out plan for Twisted Sisters
Developer ‘committed’ to downtown residential project
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Thu, Oct 21 - 4:53 AM


Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., says there will be a development at the former Tex-Park site in downtown Halifax, it just won’t be the originally planned Twisted Sisters. (Ted Pritchard / Staff)


Don’t count the Twisted Sisters project proposed for downtown Halifax out just yet, unless, that is, developer Navid Saberi gets a proposal worthy of The Godfather.

"I’m not going to sell it unless somebody gives me an offer that I can’t refuse," Saberi, the president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said Wednesday.

The 27-storey twin tower slated for the old Tex-Park site on the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets was called into question last week when city staffers released a report indicating that the project had dragged on past the construction start date in the development agreement. But the report pointed out council could extend the deadline.

"We are going to do a project there, for sure," Saberi said.

"Instead of just going in and asking for an extension, we just want to come up with a better idea of how we’re going to do it and when we’re going to do it. And then we go and ask for that timeline."

The original design, first proposed more than five years ago, may need some tweaking, he said.

"What I’m going to do, it will, what’s the saying? Knock your socks off," Saberi said.

In April, he said construction would start next fall. On Wednesday, he was far more nebulous about the timeline.

"We have a few options that we are looking at. We haven’t decided which option we’re going to take yet."

He was equally vague about how much the project will cost.

"It’s around a couple of hundred million."

When asked if he is tempted to sell the lot, Saberi said: "You’d need to have deep pockets to buy that site. But we’re very committed. It’s one of the projects that actually we’re excited to do."

Saberi said his company is not entertaining a sale of the property.

"When you don’t want to sell something, you can’t put a price on it.

"We think it’s one of the best sites in Halifax."

He doesn’t believe Rank Inc.’s proposal to build a convention centre, hotel and office space on the former Chronicle Herald site will hurt the chance of success for United Gulf’s project, informally dubbed the Twisted Sisters for the shape of its glass and steel towers.

"My project is 70 per cent residential (condominiums) and 30 per cent hotel and retail. So what they do is offices and hotels, and really they have no effect on what we do."

He plans a 120-room boutique hotel in the project with a "very contemporary feel."

United Gulf is also planning to start construction next spring on its second phase of the $65-million Waterton condominium complex on Walter Havill Drive. The next 150 condominium units should be completed by the end of 2012, Saberi said.

The first tower is 70 per cent sold, he said. Saberi plans to start selling condominiums in the second tower at the same time he starts building it.

His company is working on two Hammonds Plains projects.

It is planning to build more than 300 homes and an equestrian centre at Voyageur Lakes.

"We have done about 100 of it already," he said, noting that the average home in the $130-million development sells for about $500,000.

"We’ve been at it for the last four years and it probably will go on for another four years."

United Gulf has also built 30 townhouses in Glen Arbour and intends to build another 30, he said.

( [email protected])

[phrenic]

Good to see that attention is being paid to this, but I will remain cynical of this until I see things moving around on that site.

Hopefully they don't alter the twisting aspect. That's the best part.

[halifaxboyns]

I have to admit I'm cynical about this as well. I really hope they don't change the design too much.

I have a fear that they've finally realized they've bitten off more than they can chew financially.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I have to admit I'm cynical about this as well. I really hope they don't change the design too much.

I have a fear that they've finally realized they've bitten off more than they can chew financially.

I believe he can't change the design, only if the design does not meet building code. The developer is only able to change the design if it is taken through council for approval.

Even now the development requires council approval to proceed under the original development agreement.

What i took from the article was that the project and land is for sale.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

What i took from the article was that the project and land is for sale.

The city should have handled the TexPark sale differently. They could have requested proposals and then stipulated that the winner has a fixed period to begin construction before the others are given an option to buy. Council also should have figured out what they wanted on the site before even doing the sale - it is absurd to sell development land to somebody and then try to prevent them from building on it. HRM by Design would help with this although the heights are too low in many areas (not sure about this site).

Hopefully we'll see a better process for the Clyde Street lands, if that ever happens.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

The city should have handled the TexPark sale differently. They could have requested proposals and then stipulated that the winner has a fixed period to begin construction before the others are given an option to buy. Council also should have figured out what they wanted on the site before even doing the sale - it is absurd to sell development land to somebody and then try to prevent them from building on it. HRM by Design would help with this although the heights are too low in many areas (not sure about this site).

Hopefully we'll see a better process for the Clyde Street lands, if that ever happens.

I believe they are putting those stimpulations in the Clyde Street sale (i.e. Build by deadline). One thing i've heard is that the clyde street lands will require a significant amount of public parking, ontop of parking requirements of the building(s) itself. At a reduced height the sites had been given i think the development of those lands might be more difficult then first thought. The suggested price from the city may make anything but commerical use feasible.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

I believe they are putting those stimpulations in the Clyde Street sale (i.e. Build by deadline). One thing i've heard is that the clyde street lands will require a significant amount of public parking, ontop of parking requirements of the building(s) itself. At a reduced height the sites had been given i think the development of those lands might be more difficult then first thought. The suggested price from the city may make anything but commerical use feasible.

Silly.. have they looked at how full existing garages in the area typically are, particularly outside of 9-5 weekdays? I don't think the real complaint in that area is parking, it's a lack of on-street or possibly surface lots (people expecting SGR to be like the Bayers Lake Wal-Mart, although that place probably also has parking issues). Unfortunately on-street is never going to be sufficient at that density and forcing developers to build larger garages isn't particularly helpful. Usually private developers are very willing to build garages if there is demand.

[halifaxboyns]

If they are putting the twisted sisters site up for sale; then that's following a very common practice here in Alberta in general.

Typically developers here would undertake a specific design (either requiring a conventional zone in the bylaw or a special zoning (Direct Control - which is basically similar to a Development Agreement except the design of the building may or may not be locked into the DC).

Once they got the zoning approved - they'd either build it; or sell it and move on. That's how Torode was bankrolling their operations until they went under; because they got so in debt; that they were hoping to sell off their two most recently rezoned sites and there was no market for it.

There are risks in that; but I agree - I think they are locked into the design. The DA says the Development Officer can only approve minor changes and it was always my understanding that those would be in terms of things that would be necessary to change because of code. Not a major thing like the overall design.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by sdm

What i took from the article was that the project and land is for sale.

But he says multiple times that it is definitely not for sale.

[DigitalNinja]

What's the hight limit for this lot under HRM by design?

[fenwick16]

These are the HRM_by_Design maps. It looks like 51 meters pre-bonus height and 66 meters post-bonus height. Prior to HRM_by_Design, it was ramparts maximum and this is what the development agreement (DA) gave United Gulf - however, now that the DA has expired, HRM could turn down a request for an extension.

One odd thing about the HRM_by_Design height maps is that it shows a maximum post-bonus height of 66 meters for the Maritime Centre but according to this Emporis link the Maritime Centre is 78 meters - http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=maritimecenter-halifax-canada. It also shows only 51 meters pre-bonus height for the Maritime Centre .

(source: page 55/141 and page 56/141 of the following pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf ) The pdf file is at a higher resolution than the images below, so the street names can be seen better on the pdf file.

[BravoZulu]

Here's a theory, feel free to poke holes in it if you like (actually encouraged)

I was just looking at the height limit maps that were posted, If you drew a line (a view plane perhaps) from citadel to the UG lot wouldn't the proposed convention centre be right in the middle.

I can't remember off the top of my head how that particular view plane worked with regards to the UG proposal, but If the convention centre is built directly in front then wouldn't UG have a case to go higher on their lot since the convention centre would already be "blocking the view"

Anyway, I'm not sure that even made sense, but it does in my head (it's been a long day). Let me know what you think or if I should try explaining my thoughts once I get some sleep. Again this is just the first thought that popped into my head when I saw it.

Cheers,
BZ

[DigitalNinja]

It would be a good case, it would make for a perfect case... Except Halifax has a lot of nim nuts in it. The would complain about the shadow from the building and that people are not going to get a tan and tall buildings cause cancer.

[fenwick16]

BravoZulu: This makes perfectly good sense - there is actually an interesting image in this report - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WTCC-II-Bid-Summary.pdf on page 15/36 of the pdf file that shows how the Nova Centre will block the United Golf towers. The UG towers won't be able to go higher than the ramparts maximum but I see your point. However, I am sure that the Heritage Trust would still argue that the UG towers would be out-of-sync with the neighbouring historic buildings.

[eastcoastal]

If a new agreement has to be entered into, I think that the HRMbyDesign rules would apply. Since height is not negotiated like in a Development Agreement, I would assume that the heights in HRMbyDesign would apply - no increases due to convention centre or lack of one

[halifaxboyns]

I don't recall seeing anything that said the agreement expired though.
Has it?
BravoZulu is correct to a degree. UG towers would be 'behind' the convention centre (depending on the angle at which you look at it).

For example; if you looked at it from the perspective that rank used for the photos on it's site; yes it would mostly be behind the centre. If you were to look from the road up the hill closer to Sackville, it would be off to the side.

So I wouldn't phrase the argument quite in the same way - I would put it more along the lines of it's location is in an area not covered by any viewplane, existing context around the building (maritime centre, founder's square and 'if' the Nova Centre is built) lends itself to support a change to the height. If the discovery centre and Roy Building applications are given the green light - that would further support the height being higher.

The tricky thing with trying say 'it's behind something' is that unless what it's behind extends multiple blocks; someone could argue it isn't. I'd hope that if DC and Roy go ahead; then you could say that the extent of the affect would be limited by the fact those buildings would mostly be in the way.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't recall seeing anything that said the agreement expired though.
Has it?

The HRM just put out a list of projects and expiry dates. It was posted somewhere but I am not sure where? The development agreement expired in March 2010.

EDITED: Corrected incorrect post - the United Gulf project was passed by HRM council by a vote of 15-5 on March 21, 2006