[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C - Page 16

fenwick16 · #**301** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by haligonia

Just noticed that one of your tabs is "How to take a screenshot"

That's going the extra mile!

to David1gray

q12 · #**302** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:17 AM**

Watch this!

http://atlantic.ctv.ca/?video=504014
CTV ATLANTIC

David1gray · #**303** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:20 AM**

hahaha I was wondering when someone would notice that. I knew how to do it on my old laptop.... but it's different on this one.

ScovaNotian · #**304** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:22 AM**

It looks like two 48 story Cogswell towers.

David1gray · #**305** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:33 AM**

I hope you don't mind q12 I quoted your post to the Canadian city proposals thread.

fenwick16 · #**306** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by q12

Watch this!

http://atlantic.ctv.ca/?video=504014

That is an amazing video clip - thanks for posting it; it covers the national ship-building selection (that would be a boom for Halifax); the Nova Center and the stadium. Great find! You should re-post it in the stadium thread also.

The amazing thing is that Peter McKay said that they have approached the CFL about Halifax building a stadium (I think that I heard that correctly??). It also went into some depth about Shannon Park. Peter McKay seems very interested in Halifax building a stadium.

q12 · #**307** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by David1gray

I hope you don't mind q12 I quoted your post to the Canadian city proposals thread.

No problem.

Here are some more from the news story. It states the project will cost $350 million.

http://atlantic.ctv.ca/?video=504014
CTV ATLANTIC

spaustin · #**308** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:55 AM**

This proposal doesn't seem the least bit realistic.

halifaxboyns · #**309** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 5:23 AM**

What concerns me about this project is what has been going out here in Alberta for the past 10 years during the booms. A lot of what I saw with rezonings was that they would go after something huge, with great renderings and big hype...then nothing would happen. They did it to boost the value of the land and then when they got the right price, they'd sell the land and move on. The new owners would then try to do even bigger and it was just a big cycle that went bust and took down one of the biggest developers in Calgary. What I worry about is this is all smoke and mirrors to get more money out of the land to sell it.

On the flip side, the fact they went with condos fully - is a great idea for downtown. I think we all agree that the downtown office market is virtually none and so to build a huge number in the downtown would be great! I can only guess that this development would easily bring somewhere in the realm of 2,000 people to that site. Big numbers.

Personally, I think if they wanted to get this approved in a way that you could ensure the heritage people wouldn't be able to make a big fuss, put it on Agricola or Gottingen Street. The rampart heights don't apply there and that's where they always point and say put the tall buildings - so fine, play their game. Then when they argue bloody murder, you just say 'well hey, that's where you told us to put them, so we did'.

eastcoastal · #**310** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 10:49 AM**

This latest version seems totally ridiculous to me.

In the AllNovaScotia piece on this Saberi says that 1) he doesn't expect much public opposition to raising the height (and ignoring HRMby Design), and 2) that the condo units will start at around $200,000 for 600 square feet.

Both those points make him seem a little delusional. Maybe he forgets he's in Halifax, and that the market here is Haligonians? Even if his hope is to attract people from elsewhere to live in these (retirees maybe?) I feel as though someone from away would retire to Nova Scotia because it'd be easier to buy a house with land here and afford it than elsewhere.

I was all for the previous proposal, but this makes no sense at all to me.

Empire · #**311** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 11:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

What concerns me about this project is what has been going out here in Alberta for the past 10 years during the booms. A lot of what I saw with rezonings was that they would go after something huge, with great renderings and big hype...then nothing would happen. They did it to boost the value of the land and then when they got the right price, they'd sell the land and move on. The new owners would then try to do even bigger and it was just a big cycle that went bust and took down one of the biggest developers in Calgary. What I worry about is this is all smoke and mirrors to get more money out of the land to sell it.

On the flip side, the fact they went with condos fully - is a great idea for downtown. I think we all agree that the downtown office market is virtually none and so to build a huge number in the downtown would be great! I can only guess that this development would easily bring somewhere in the realm of 2,000 people to that site. Big numbers.

Personally, I think if they wanted to get this approved in a way that you could ensure the heritage people wouldn't be able to make a big fuss, put it on Agricola or Gottingen Street. The rampart heights don't apply there and that's where they always point and say put the tall buildings - so fine, play their game. Then when they argue bloody murder, you just say 'well hey, that's where you told us to put them, so we did'.

The siteline from inside the rampart applies in a 360deg sweep around Citadel Hill. This point is taken from 5ft. off the ground at the centre of Parade Sq. inside the ramparts. No building shall be visible from this point.

Agricola or Gottingen would be a tough sell for both the developer and HRM. All surrounding buildings would be 2-4 storey wooden structures....not a good fit.

If U/G is serious let them post a $2,000,000 performance bond. If they don't start construction by Jan. 2013 (not land speculation city 2014) then $10,000 a day is siphoned out of the performance bond account until they officially start construction. If they lose the entire 2 million then it gets split up between heritage, affordable housing, city improvements etc. $500,000 would stay in a special heritage/urban development account.

Because the building design is so out of the box it would lead me to believe they aren't wasting time on a serious proposal.

ScovaNotian · #**312** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:07 PM**

I think council might as well approve this. There'd be a stunned silence for a few years and afterwards UG would come back with a proposal for a billion dollar 99 story tower.

q12 · #**313** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:26 PM**

Read this, it sounds serious to me.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1254375.html

Quote:

Higher Twisted Sisters needed, says developer
Proposal for 48-storey Skye Halifax sure to be given a rough ride
ChronicleHerald.ca
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Thu, Jul 21 - 6:32 AM

United Gulf Developments Ltd. has changed its mind about the controversial Twisted Sisters project at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets in downtown Halifax and is proposing instead to build the city’s tallest structure.

Haliwood · #**314** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 12:59 PM**

What did I tell ya?

Waye Mason · #**315** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:08 PM**

My read is that he is doing this just to make fun of Council. It is not likely that he can get permits, approvals and start building by 2012.

I actually think he is saying "eff you Dawn Sloane".

But I don't think he actual wants to build this.

q12 · #**316** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:23 PM**

um...

http://www.skyehalifax.ca

Should we get the thread renamed?

Waye Mason · #**317** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:38 PM**

I could make that website in an hour. Doesn't mean he is serious.

Empire · #**318** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I could make that website in an hour. Doesn't mean he is serious.

Force U/G to post a bond...............

With a few minor adjustments to the design Skye Halifax could actually look like this:

SKY Halifax
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...TwblOhg2SdUw&cbp=12,220.87,,0,-22.5&z=15

I think the HRMxD policy of less glass in building design is misguided if not dead wrong. Glass buildings tend to fit in great in any skyline. Glass reflects the sky, light, water other buildings etc. adding to the diversity of the skyline and blending into the surroundings. Just another example of bad planning policy.

1. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...VjVvyR-qz7OEOiLeCXg&cbp=12,356.84,,1,-15

2. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...uhfTamLJulSrgxhEOUA&cbp=12,144.41,,0,-45

3. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...LhTYrNTz57Ubpjg9w&cbp=12,309.74,,0,-22.5

4. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...tT7rUFolAsD_bE4RaOrpQ&cbp=12,343.72,,0,0

q12 · #**319** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

Force U/G to post a bond...............

With a few minor adjustments to the design Skye Halifax could actually look like this:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...TwblOhg2SdUw&cbp=12,220.87,,0,-22.5&z=15

I agree make them post a bond.

It does look a lot like Cogswell Tower in the night renderings but not the day rendering.

CTV ATLANTIC

I would think putting an Sobeys Urban Fresh in the bottom would make sense.

burtj · #**320** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by q12

No problem.

Here are some more from the news story. It states the project will cost $350 million.

CTV ATLANTIC

Ooo. Really like this - very chilled buildings