HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Sutton Place Nova Centre in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2101  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 2:08 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Apparently they have not put it up on the website. Really, Bousquet is a big liability for that publication, not just for his opinionated faux-journalism, but for the outright falsehoods he likes to pass off as facts.
He is always beating the drum about this one grand issue that he has concocted. The articles are so tiresome that I don't bother with them anymore. Outside of his fan base of 3 people in the online comments (annoying and always negative HCAP type crowd) most probably feel the same way.

I would guess that The Coast is primarily an entertainment listing paper for most people who read it. Savage Love and the restaurant reviews are probably also popular.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2102  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 11:50 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
North of Gilead
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of Gilead
Posts: 11,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
The following statement is in the Design Manual about glass tinting: - page 21/80 of the pdf file (manual page 18) - "Darkly tinted or mirrored glass is prohibited.
Clear glass is preferrable to light tints. Glare reduction coatings are preferred." So I think that the glass in the Nova Centre rendering (above) would be acceptable according to the manual.

This is to avoid bird strikes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdm View Post
I believe the HRM by design manual states glossy reflective glass is not permitted?
So where does Halifax's TD Centre glass fit into all of this. Isn't that darkly tinted/mirrored and run afoul of this regulation? By glossy and reflective I was alluding to the type of glass used on the PWC office building under construction in Toronto. It's of a very high quality. Would this type of glass not be permitted in HRM as it's darkly tinted and very reflective?


Courtesy of Parkdalian
__________________
ELBOWS UP CANADA, ELBOWS UP UKRAINE, ELBOWS UP GREENLAND
CANADA, EUROPE, NZ, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, MEXICO STRONG

US REPUBLICANS/MAGA/ICE NOT WELCOME HERE, STAY OUT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2103  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 12:37 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
So where does Halifax's TD Centre glass fit into all of this. Isn't that darkly tinted/mirrored and run afoul of this regulation? By glossy and reflective I was alluding to the type of glass used on the PWC office building under construction in Toronto. It's of a very high quality. Would this type of glass not be permitted in HRM as it's darkly tinted and very reflective?


Courtesy of Parkdalian
Based on the design manual, it wouldn't be allowed. It is the same situation with the glass on the TD Bank tower in downtown Halifax - it would no longer be allowed (when they re-clad and expand the TD tower then I am sure that they will use a lighter tint or clear glass and not have it reflective). The glass on the NS Power converted office building on the waterfront is the type of glass that the HRM by Design manual is recommending (see-through glass and just slightly tented, however clear with a non-reflective coating is preferable).

Birds can't distinguish highly reflective, darkly tinted glass from the surroundings and therefore fly into the glass (I guess because the highly reflective glass reflects the surroundings and confuses the birds).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2104  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 3:35 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Based on the design manual, it wouldn't be allowed. It is the same situation with the glass on the TD Bank tower in downtown Halifax - it would no longer be allowed (when they re-clad and expand the TD tower then I am sure that they will use a lighter tint or clear glass and not have it reflective). The glass on the NS Power converted office building on the waterfront is the type of glass that the HRM by Design manual is recommending (see-through glass and just slightly tented, however clear with a non-reflective coating is preferable).

Birds can't distinguish highly reflective, darkly tinted glass from the surroundings and therefore fly into the glass (I guess because the highly reflective glass reflects the surroundings and confuses the birds).
Actually i don't know if the glazing at NSPI building meet HRM by design as i believe it is still to reflective. personally i like it, just heard it's not what is wanted in the design manual.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2105  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 4:41 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,772
I don't think the glass on the Waterfront powerstation is all that reflective. Some of the shots seen in the following link are daytime and you can still see inside the building and seems to be no reflection of the harbour. Others from different angles give some reflection but its distorted.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153811&page=19
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2106  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2010, 5:25 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstaleness View Post
I don't think the glass on the Waterfront powerstation is all that reflective. Some of the shots seen in the following link are daytime and you can still see inside the building and seems to be no reflection of the harbour. Others from different angles give some reflection but its distorted.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153811&page=19
I was surprised by some pictures how I could see support beams and concrete through the windows, so I don't think that it is reflective (although if it doesn't have an anti-glare coating then it will reflect some light). It does have a slight tint whereas the Design Manual indicates that clear glass is preferred. However, darkly tinted, reflective glass is what they want to eliminate in new construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2107  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2010, 6:39 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I would think that the question of whether it is or isn't reflective would be a question for the design committee to figure out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2108  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2010, 12:46 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
I don't think it is very complicated. If it is darkly tinted, highly reflective glass (mirrored) then it is not allowed. We all know what clear glass looks like and lightly tinted is easy to understand. An anti-reflective or glare-reduction coating is also easy to understand (but if not then here is an explanation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2109  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2010, 6:28 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Calgary came up with a policy for office towers in the downtown regarding bird strikes - I sat through that planning commission attempting to not laugh. I think if you search through the City's website; it should be online.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2110  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2010, 8:03 PM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Calgary came up with a policy for office towers in the downtown regarding bird strikes - I sat through that planning commission attempting to not laugh. I think if you search through the City's website; it should be online.
Yeah real funny. The number of migratory songbirds has plummeted in recent decades. Habitat loss is undoubtedly the main factor, but the number killed when they have to fly through urban areas is also a concern. The type of glass matters, but the real problem is the utterly wasteful practice of leaving lights on in vacant office buildings. Migrating birds have evolved to migrate by stars and they can get dazzled by city lights, especially tall buildings, with unfortunate results. Just turn the freaking lights off already! The buildings are empty after 5:00 or so except for the cleaning crew. I remember watching the Nature of Things years ago when this problem was first being publicly identified and they showed a city crew in Downtown Toronto at work after a Spring night. They litterally had thousands of birds to sweep up into the trash before the office workers arrived for the workday. Such an appauling and completely unnecessary waste. Ensuring that our city works with our environment is an important part of "good" planning.

http://conservation.audubon.org/programs/common-birds-decline
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/nature/birds.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2111  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 7:46 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
Yeah real funny. The number of migratory songbirds has plummeted in recent decades. Habitat loss is undoubtedly the main factor, but the number killed when they have to fly through urban areas is also a concern. The type of glass matters, but the real problem is the utterly wasteful practice of leaving lights on in vacant office buildings. Migrating birds have evolved to migrate by stars and they can get dazzled by city lights, especially tall buildings, with unfortunate results. Just turn the freaking lights off already! The buildings are empty after 5:00 or so except for the cleaning crew. I remember watching the Nature of Things years ago when this problem was first being publicly identified and they showed a city crew in Downtown Toronto at work after a Spring night. They litterally had thousands of birds to sweep up into the trash before the office workers arrived for the workday. Such an appauling and completely unnecessary waste. Ensuring that our city works with our environment is an important part of "good" planning.

http://conservation.audubon.org/programs/common-birds-decline
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/nature/birds.html
I probably should've qualified why I was laughing. It wasn't about the issue - Calgary is in a migratory bird path; so we see it a lot. It was mainly some of the questions, which were really off the wall. That and some of the staff trying to answer them. There is internal joke that they've been nicknamed 'bird brains' (long before taking up this project). It's not really well studied and in the end commission sent it back for more work. I had to leave before they decided on sending it back; so I haven't heard the full reasons why yet. I suspect I will on Thursday, when I'm presenting at commission on another matter.

But to that matter - is Halifax in a migratory bird path? I know it's a huge issue for Calgary and I think Edmonton - but would it be as much of an issue for HRM?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2112  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 7:52 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
From the Herald's online version today...things are starting to get nasty!

HRM staffer denies mayor pressured him on trade centre
Convention centre foes say bureaucrat felt heat 'to get these numbers high'
By IAN FAIRCLOUGH Staff Reporter
Tue, Dec 7 - 4:53 AM

Save the View coalition member Allan Robertson comments on a city staff report for the proposed new Halifax convention centre during a news conference on Monday. (Peter Parsons / Staff)

Two members of a group that opposes a proposed new convention centre in Halifax say a municipal staffer told them he was under pressure from Mayor Peter Kelly to provide estimates that supported the centre as a good investment.

But the staff member denies saying anything of the kind.

Allan Robertson of Save the View made the allegation at a news conference at which he said the city staff report contained unrealistic revenue projections and left out some costs. Regional council decided Nov. 9 to support the convention centre on the basis of the staff report.

Robertson said Bruce Fisher, Halifax Regional Municipality’s manager of fiscal and tax policy, referred to the mayor in a meeting on Nov. 24.

"He said, ‘Listen, I’m being pressured so much by the mayor on the one hand to get these numbers high (for property tax revenue), and I’m being pressured by you guys to say they’re far too high,’ " Robertson said.

"I’m simply reporting what Mr. Fisher told Phil Pacey and me, it’s as simple as that."

Pacey said he recalled Fisher saying something to the effect that while Save the View contended the estimated revenue from property taxes should have been lower, the mayor wanted him to go "in the other direction."

But Fisher said Robertson and Pacey are wrong.

"They’re misinterpreting," he said.

Fisher said he doesn’t recall exactly what was said at their meeting, but "I can tell you that I’ve never met with the mayor on this issue, I’ve never spoken to him prior to going to (committee of the whole), I never spoke to him about the property tax on the site."

He said the taxation figure sent to council "is purely our estimate. We stand behind it, it’s reasonable based on what we know today."

Robertson said the 60-page staff presentation to council several weeks ago that led to council voting in favour of the convention centre included some information that wasn’t in the recap at the end of the presentation.

The recap showed that, with the provincial government paying property tax, the centre would break even for the city.

Robertson said the break-even estimate had tax revenue projections that were too high and should instead have included items resulting in an annual loss of $5.8 million.

Fisher said he and his department stand by their numbers.

"It’s a reasonable estimate, based on all the factors we were able to consider," he said.

"The mayor has never pressured me to do anything unprofessional with those numbers or make them higher than they should be."

He said his department looked at things such as lost property taxes from neighbouring businesses, which Save the View said wasn’t considered, and also at what kind of growth might create more tax revenue.

"I guess Save the View wants to take the two negatives and put them in the summary slide but they don’t want to put the positives in," Fisher said.

"In our summary slide, we focused very clearly on the site, keeping in mind that there are issues outside the site, both positive and negative.

"Council knew that. They had all the information."

Personally - this is where the issue has taken a serious turn for me. It's one thing to argue numbers, but when a group accuses someone of doing something unprofessional without proof - they cross a line.

I watched the presentation and in no way did I feel he did what STV is suggesting. If I were the City Manager of HRM - I'd be in the news demanding an appology and retraction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2113  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 8:13 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,827
What a bunch. Anyone want to place bets on how long it is before they get sued?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2114  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 11:29 AM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,103
Sue Uteck had a great letter to allnovascotia calling out the heritage trust and save the view. She called their credibility into question many times; it seems these latest rounds of accusations made by them have been the last straw. Thankfully she also called out the fact that the only issue is height and not economics, and that if it was a short convention center they would have no issue. It’s good to see councilors waking up to this issue instead of either being a part of the group or putting them on a pedestal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2115  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 7:48 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Good for Sue. It's about someone took them to task and honestly I think developers should sue them when they pull this stuff.

For far too long I've had the impression that these people are pushing their agenda through mis-use of the appeal process. To some end, you could probably make a great argument that they are expropriating property through the appeal process (appealing everything).

Would be a great argument to see, because you'd present a case that they don't own the property and are not the keepers of the policy; so their opinion is their best guess at what the intention of the policies are. It is the city that is the people responsible in legislation to make the determination of policy and it is their interpretation (in law) that is what council must consider. If STV doesn't want the property developed, then they should purchase it. I'd love to be a fly on a wall to hear those arguments, because there is your legal case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2116  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 6:48 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,014
Wow, I bet the members of HT/STV would sell out their own family to see this development stopped.

Pathetic... they are on some wikileaks type shit now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2117  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 10:46 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
The good thing is that the Save The View group has lost almost all credibility. So I don't think they are any longer a threat to this development. Now it is just a question of the province and HRM working out a deal, and getting sufficient funding from the federal government (I can't see them not getting a significant amount).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2118  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 2:34 PM
CorbeauNoir's Avatar
CorbeauNoir CorbeauNoir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 361
StV is starting to scrape at the concrete floor the barrel used to sit on.

It's really depressing to see just how hellbent they are in pursuing this stuff. If people pursued urban projects with the same unbridled enthusiasm StV attacks practically any effort at urban progress Halifax would be the cleanest safest city in Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2119  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2010, 7:07 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
Sue Uteck had a great letter to allnovascotia calling out the heritage trust and save the view. She called their credibility into question many times; it seems these latest rounds of accusations made by them have been the last straw. Thankfully she also called out the fact that the only issue is height and not economics, and that if it was a short convention center they would have no issue. It’s good to see councilors waking up to this issue instead of either being a part of the group or putting them on a pedestal.
Maybe she read some of our posts...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2120  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2010, 6:21 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir View Post
StV is starting to scrape at the concrete floor the barrel used to sit on.

It's really depressing to see just how hellbent they are in pursuing this stuff. If people pursued urban projects with the same unbridled enthusiasm StV attacks practically any effort at urban progress Halifax would be the cleanest safest city in Canada.
I'd go one step further and say they are now at the dirt under the concrete foundation.

I haven't posted in their facebook group in weeks because some of the arguements are just nutty. I'm waiting for them to come out and say building the convention centre will attract witches and pure evil to HRM. They haven't used that argument yet. Oh darn, now I gave them a suggestion...
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 2:12 PM.

     

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