General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

That's a bit rediculous, those buildings have merit.

I despise the Khyber building for a bunch of reasons. I dislike the gothic haunted-house style. I dislike that it houses the obstructionist Heritage Trust. I dislike that HRM makes it available virtually free to an arts society that uses it as its private clubhouse. I dislike that my tax dollars go to not only make that possible but are going to fund a multi-million dollar reno to make it an even better private clubhouse. I dislike that it along with its neighbors has held back that entire block from redevelopment and makes that stretch of Barrington look deserted and decrepit.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I despise the Khyber building for a bunch of reasons. I dislike the gothic haunted-house style. I dislike that it houses the obstructionist Heritage Trust. I dislike that HRM makes it available virtually free to an arts society that uses it as its private clubhouse. I dislike that my tax dollars go to not only make that possible but are going to fund a multi-million dollar reno to make it an even better private clubhouse. I dislike that it along with its neighbors has held back that entire block from redevelopment and makes that stretch of Barrington look deserted and decrepit.

You are right in some regards. I personally like gothic style, but anyway... I'm sure that the folks in the Khyber think that the Nova Centre will be the "club house" for the "managerial class" or whatever... but they are hugely hypocritical.

I say that a successful downtown should have both arts and business. What disturbs me most is that the obstructionists will never bend, whereas people with other points of view tend to be more flexible.

A new convention centre, library, performing arts centre, and stadium are all critical for Halifax.

Keith, I think you are on the money about some things, but I'm not going to play the same games of either side in development debates. Both the HT/STV/arts community and the business community are so polarized at this point that everybody else in the middle feels somehow less compared to these "morally superior" assholes.

We need both. To say that is incorrect is buying into some bullshit that simply isn't founded in reality.

[beyeas]

AllNS is reporting that Sobey's has plans to "re-develop" their Queen Street lands. Apparently they have not been renewing the leases of the other businesses on their property there.

The downside is that it doesn't sound from the tenor of the article that they are going to do a true re-development in terms of integrating it into something with any height and/or residential component. Rather it just sounds like they plan to renew the Sobey's with their new format and add a gas bar.

Hopefully they plan more than that, but based on that article I wouldn't hold my breath. It will be a huge missed opportunity if they just develop it as another 1 level grocery store with a parking lot and a gas bar. That is the utter opposite of the sort of forward thinking development that should go there (especially given the redevelopment of Fenwick is already going to add a nice density of people to the area).

[someone123]

They shouldn't be allowed to build a 1 storey Sobeys and gas station in that area. It's no more appropriate than the planned highrises nearby that were quashed.

They can also make way more money by adding residential. If they don't it will be another huge disappointment emblematic of one of many problems in the city.

[HRM]

What nearby highrises were "quashed"?

The redevelopment of Fenwick that includes two new 8-10 story buildings was overwhelmingly approved. Grainery Lofts is now underway. Trillium and Vic are nearing completion.

[someone123]

19 storey South Street proposal, 27 storey brewery tower. Not permitted because they were deemed too tall.

Few seem to worry about inappropriately low densities even though they certainly also have an effect on neighbouring properties.

[TedWilliamsHead]

knock it down and make Sobeys Stadium...... close enough to dal and smu and the downtown core... this is only a joke but a dream

[TedWilliamsHead]

sorry I was actually thinking of the atlantic superstore location on barrington

[HRM]

Originally Posted by someone123

19 storey South Street proposal, 27 storey brewery tower. Not permitted because they were deemed too tall.

Few seem to worry about inappropriately low densities even though they certainly also have an effect on neighbouring properties.

Neither of the two were "quashed". SS has been built albeit at a lower height but not "quashed" nonetheless. The Alexander has been approved, admittedly reduced from 27 to 21 stories, but not "quashed" nonetheless. It's a condo project so obviously the numbers aren't lining up for Halkirk.

Twenty-one stories for the Alexander site seems acceptably appropriate for its particular site, given the neighbouring buildings in the area. The scale of the Alexander will make it easier to justify going taller should another tower be built in the area. That is of course if the Alexander is actually ever built.

[someone123]

The proposals as they existed were denied. It took many years of modifications for the developers to get approval. I believe 5620 South may even have been proposed around 2000 initially. The original (rejected outright) Brewery proposal was from 2003.

Either way, my point is that sometimes the city intervenes to reduce building heights deemed inappropriate. However, they rarely intervene to prevent inappropriate low density or car-oriented development. We've only seen a bit of this with HbD; Halifax is very far behind cities like Vancouver in this respect.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

The proposals as they existed were denied. It took many years of modifications for the developers to get approval. I believe 5620 South may even have been proposed around 2000 initially. The original (rejected outright) Brewery proposal was from 2003.

Either way, my point is that sometimes the city intervenes to reduce building heights deemed inappropriate. However, they rarely intervene to prevent inappropriate low density or car-oriented development. We've only seen a bit of this with HbD; Halifax is very far behind cities like Vancouver in this respect.

Yet we hear nothing from the environmentalist crowd about gas stations, odd isn't it? Maybe because they are just anti-height and won't admit it.

Also, shouldn't the HT be on top of stuff like this? They didn't have cars in the 1800's.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

AllNS is reporting that Sobey's has plans to "re-develop" their Queen Street lands. Apparently they have not been renewing the leases of the other businesses on their property there.

The downside is that it doesn't sound from the tenor of the article that they are going to do a true re-development in terms of integrating it into something with any height and/or residential component. Rather it just sounds like they plan to renew the Sobey's with their new format and add a gas bar.

Hopefully they plan more than that, but based on that article I wouldn't hold my breath. It will be a huge missed opportunity if they just develop it as another 1 level grocery store with a parking lot and a gas bar. That is the utter opposite of the sort of forward thinking development that should go there (especially given the redevelopment of Fenwick is already going to add a nice density of people to the area).

It looks like they could build something quite substantial on that site if they decide to. Being right next to Fenwick Towers and a couple of other apartment buildings, it would be a missed opportunity if they only build an expanded grocery store and gas bar. Here is a Google map link. It is also outside the HRM_by_Design height limitations (and likely outside any viewplane?)

I wonder if they could build a grocery store with several levels of residential over it?

[DigitalNinja]

Sobeys could make a nice development there. With a store on the bottom 1 or 2 floors, then residential for another 10 it is a nice spot and needs some new buildings to force the current crappy rental places to renovate. (South Point, I'm looking at you.)

[sk8tr]

Here's a link to a planned Safeway with residential on top on Granville Street in Vancouver.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5288050

Why wouldn't Sobey's love this idea? As you can see from the thread, in Vancouver, just like here in Halifax, there was some resistance to tall buildings on the part of certain councillors. But for the grocery store, this has to be win-win. They can be landlords (if they wish), and they have a built-in clientele.

I would love to see Sobeys do this, because you just KNOW that if Sobeys does it, then Superstore will have to follow suit (maybe on Quinpool or Barrington?).

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sk8tr

Here's a link to a planned Safeway with residential on top on Granville Street in Vancouver.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5288050

Why wouldn't Sobey's love this idea? As you can see from the thread, in Vancouver, just like here in Halifax, there was some resistance to tall buildings on the part of certain councillors. But for the grocery store, this has to be win-win. They can be landlords (if they wish), and they have a built-in clientele.

I would love to see Sobeys do this, because you just KNOW that if Sobeys does it, then Superstore will have to follow suit (maybe on Quinpool or Barrington?).

Thanks for the link sk8tr. This Vancouver project would look fantastic in that area. Here is a direct link to the architectural drawings (from sk8tr's post) - Vancouver grocery store + residential

[someone123]

Sobeys has many urban-format stores in other parts of the country (Toronto, Edmonton).

Mixed-use grocery store buildings with residential above are built more frequently now in Vancouver and its inner suburbs (Dartmouth proper and Clayton Park equivalents) than the standalone style. I live in a suburban area and shop at a grocery store with underground parking and 30-40 storey condos above. Halifax is very far behind the times.

I would love to see the old Sobeys replaced with a new building with underground parking and whatever scale of residential above, whether it's 4 floors or 40 floors. I do think that 6-8 storeys on top is probably more practical in terms of easy approval and construction.

If something like that happens the Queen Street area will become really great. If they build a set back suburban-style store with gas bar the immediate area probably won't improve much for 20-30 years because it won't be a pleasant area for the residents and pedestrian shoppers who make up the majority in that part of the city.

[alps]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sobeys has many urban-format stores in other parts of the country (Toronto, Edmonton).

Here's one near my aunt's place in Toronto with apartments above. Kind of an ugly piecemeal building but the concept would be perfect for the Queen St location.

Agreed, making the store MORE suburban will be terrible for the area. We really need stronger design guidelines when it comes to gas stations, drive thrus, more surface parking, and other such streetscape-destroying crap that has no place in this area.

[halifaxboyns]

Sobeys seems to be rather new to getting into the more 'urban' format stores; as opposed to loblaws. But based on what I've seen of them out here in Calgary - there is still resistance on their parts to go urban format in suburban areas. If I were to guess, it's probably because the only time they want to be landlords is when it's for them only. They don't seem to have a problem with moving into a development once its getting populated and there isn't a store around to serve the area (like the sobeys that ALPS pointed out). But where they seem to have problems (both sobeys and loblaws and I"d guess safeway and Save on foods) is when you get into new mixed use developments.

Face it; they aren't residential or property managers. They run grocerry stores - so they wouldn't have an interest in redeveloping a site to include residential unless they partnered with a developer; sold the land; then leased the location at a reduced rate as a condition of sale. This is an example of a situation they would be inclined to probably get in on. OR they would move into a new mixed use development if the market in the area was good (but they didn't have the building built nor would they run it).

If I were to guess it would redevelop pretty much as is, just a bigger and better layout and no residential. If you wanted to see Queen Street or even the Superstore on Young or Joe Howe redevelop - the developer would have to buy the land off them; incorporate the store (temporary close; tear down and build a footprint into the new development) and then add residential.

A lot of stores in the US are getting on board the mixed use bandwagon; but they too don't want to be property managers. I had the privilage to deal with the developer who built this development in Seattle and I asked him about Wholefood moving in. He was telling me that Wholefoods only moves into a mixed use development when it's built for them - they never build something themselves. I suspect its the same way here in Canada.

[eastcoastal]

As much as I would like to see an urban format store on Queen St., and as much as I'd like to be an optimist, Sobeys is not going that direction any time soon.

Regardless of whether or not they have urban format stores elsewhere in the country, they would have to be convinced the same would work here. My guess is that the organization is structures such that those who make decisions about how and where new stores are built out west are not the same as those who do the same out here. Another guess, is that the perception of the market in Halifax is such that a mixed use development is risky here.

We're not talking about an innovative developer, whose marketing strategy is to position themselves on the leading edge. This is Sobeys.

[fenwick16]

This story (below) was in the metronews. I am not convinced that these groups are against urban sprawl. Some of the people involved have helped to limit growth on the peninsula and they now seem to be targeting the suburbs. In my opinion, they are just against growth.

I understand the need to limit urban sprawl but that term should be defined. If people want to own detached homes near the city core then this is not urban sprawl, in my opinion. There isn't enough land on the peninsula for a sufficient number of detached homes, and people with detached homes shouldn't be telling people without detached homes that they must live in condos and apartment buildings. On the other hand, people in the suburbs should pay their fair share for services possibly through increased development fees in the suburbs.

Does Jennifer Watts really want more dense development in her district? Does anyone know of an example of that desire by Jennifer Watts? Could it just be that she and her friends see the population growth occurring in the municipality and are looking for ways to halt it?

There is the other fact - if the municipality wants more industrial jobs then these plants will have to be built outside of the city core in the industrial parks; shouldn't homes be built close to these parks so that workers won't have to travel as far?

Does anyone know of this "alliance's" definition of urban sprawl; what is considered to be their boundary of urban growth? One question with an urban greenbelt - if the HRM sees phenomenal growth and prosperity then can a greenbelt be opened up in the future for growth. After all, people need jobs to survive and Nova Scotians would probably prefer to see to see growth and prosperity locally instead of in Alberta and Ontario (there are exceptions, some people really would prefer to see growth happen in these other locations)

(source: http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/871460--an-alliance-against-sprawl )

An alliance against sprawl
Alliance looking for more community groups to join Green belt plan for HRM already underway Health, environment, conservation, trails groups among the members

JENNIFER TAPLIN
METRO HALIFAX
Published: May 26, 2011 2:02 a.m.
Last modified: May 26, 2011 2:07 a.m.

An alliance of community do-gooders has risen to battle sprawl.

Seventeen community groups from all over HRM have joined forces under the banner Our HRM Alliance to push for sustainable growth as council gears up to review the Regional Municipal Panning Strategy later this year.

They even have a theme song: Joel Plaskett’s Love This Town.

Representatives publicly announced the alliance and launched a website during a press conference in Halifax yesterday.

“We really hope the alliance will play a key role in making change,” said Mark Butler with the Ecology Action Centre. “It goes beyond a group hug for downtown.”

Walter Regan with the Sackville Rivers Association, said the mega-developments eating up thousands of acres are subsidized by taxpayers. He said developers should have to pay for additional services.

“We have to take control over our destiny,” he said. “People aren’t getting what they want, they’re taking what they’re given.”

Paul MacKinnon with the Downtown Halifax Business Commission said first the residential market seeped away from downtown, and then it was retail. Now office space is high-tailing out of downtown for cheaper rents in business parks.

“It’s an alarm bell,” he said.

Touching on the health impacts of driving cars instead of walking, Menna MacIsaac with the Heart and Stroke Foundation said sprawl is costly.

Inactivity in HRM costs the provincial health care system about $16 million a year, she said.

“There is an obvious link between lifestyle and health, and that link also exists between one’s health and their built-in environment,” she said.