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

[Empire]

Originally Posted by alps

The United Gulf proposal for 1591 Granville Street and an adjacent property has been approved by both the city council (about a year ago), and also by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board during an appeal by the Heritage Trust that wrapped up this month. So let's celebrate!

The towers will be built on the site of the old Texpark, a municipal parkade that was demolished a few years ago. A smaller, rather ugly building currently housing a law office and other businesses will also be demolished.

The towers are being designed by Hariri Pontarini Architects of Toronto, and will cost C$140-150 million. One of the towers will be used as a hotel, while the other will contain around 250 condos housing about 500 people. The 4-storey podium will contain a conference centre, offices, and ground-level retail. Parking will be located underground (the site is also located next to the newish MetroPark facility). Streetscape improvements are also included in the development. When completed, the buildings will be tied for third tallest in the city.

Now that the appeal is out of the way, the design will be completed, and construction should begin within the next couple years. I can't wait to see these beautiful buildings constructed and benefiting the Barrington Street area through good design & increased population density. The lot is pretty ugly, at the moment.












Photo credits: United Gulf Developments

I would like to see the original design but only the narrow tower as mix of hotel and condos at 35 storeys. The building should be at the north end of the site to max out the view of George's Island.

The new proposal however would give a mini Manhattan feel to downtown as viewed from the MacDonald bridge. Skye would resemble the former WTC twin towers.

[q12]

Originally Posted by David1gray

did this up really quickly. im off to work now, ill try to do a better one later.

David1gray I hope you don't mind I took your shot and tried something with the rendering view from citadel hill.
http://atlantic.ctv.ca/?video=504014
CTV ATLANTIC




I have no Photoshop skills, I just used paint. Not sure if the height, location, dimensions are even close I just guessed.

[David1gray]

Originally Posted by q12

David1gray I hope you don't mind I took your shot and tried something with the rendering view from citadel hill.
http://atlantic.ctv.ca/?video=504014
CTV ATLANTIC




I have no Photoshop skills, I just used paint. Not sure if the height, location, dimensions are even close I just guessed.

No that's fine, I've been too busy to do it myself.

[halifaxboyns]

Q12 - good effort. I think your pasting job was pretty good - but I think the height would be somewhat lower because of the grade change. Probably by about 5 stories from the way it appears (at least to me). But still good effort.

I think Empire's comment about allowing tall buildings and preserving heritage is valid and it's done pretty well in Boston, with a mix of old and new. I think maybe the rampart maximum heights should be lifted for the Cogswell Interchange lands. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. This way, anything in 'front' of the hill (like this site) which is typically the most popular direction people who look off from the deck by the citadell entrance gaze - you'd have a cap on building height. But since few people look towards the Bridges and the Cogswell Site isn't in viewplanes anyway - why not just let it go completely?

It's going to take years for the interchange to come down, be replaced and roads realigned anyway, but that may inspire Empire to move ahead with International Place because it could end up with more height.

I applaud Sabari for getting people talking though...that's good. It's time we take a look at this issue, but I don't know if it would be appropriate to do it now because of an application or wait until a new regional plan. I certainly don't like the idea of a plebiscite, because if the question is asked in the 'wrong way' - then it's pointless.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't listen to the guy from Moncton - he's just trying to keep Halifax down.

No, not really - It's just my honest opinion....

I lived in Halifax for nine years and have a soft spot for the city, especially the peninsular core.

I still think a project in the 25-30 storey range would be more appropriate for the scale of the city. Don't forget that Fenwick Place is 30 stories tall and I always thought that it stuck out like a sore thumb.

If you could establish a stable of new construction in the core, all in the 20-30 storey range, don't you think it would contribute more to the urban feel of the downtown than having fewer but taller buildings?

How do other people on the forum feel.....is there sufficient demand in the condo market for two 48 storey towers?

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No, not really - It's just my honest opinion....

I lived in Halifax for nine years and have a soft spot for the city, especially the peninsular core.

I still think a project in the 25-30 storey range would be more appropriate for the scale of the city. Don't forget that Fenwick Place is 30 stories tall and I always thought that it stuck out like a sore thumb.

If you could establish a stable of new construction in the core, all in the 20-30 storey range, don't you think it would contribute more to the urban feel of the downtown than having fewer but taller buildings?

How do other people on the forum feel.....is there sufficient demand in the condo market for two 48 storey towers?

To play devil's advocate, Fenwick Tower stands out the way it does largely because it's so isolated from any other building of comparable height.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No, not really - It's just my honest opinion....

I lived in Halifax for nine years and have a soft spot for the city, especially the peninsular core.

I still think a project in the 25-30 storey range would be more appropriate for the scale of the city. Don't forget that Fenwick Place is 30 stories tall and I always thought that it stuck out like a sore thumb.

If you could establish a stable of new construction in the core, all in the 20-30 storey range, don't you think it would contribute more to the urban feel of the downtown than having fewer but taller buildings?

How do other people on the forum feel.....is there sufficient demand in the condo market for two 48 storey towers?

To a certain extent I actually agree with Monctonrad. The context of the adjacent area often helps (or hinders) an application. Something around 30 stories would be good here. But, Fenwick is 33 stories (or is it 34?). So it's not that far off.

Then again, like I said before - the HT has said put all the tall buildings on Agricola and Quinpool and no one has done that. Perhaps this proposal should move there and seek the 'blessing' of the HT...since they've already endorsed those locations. lol

I should point out that the Pacey's house is near Quinpool - so they will be the first to backpedal.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Then again, like I said before - the HT has said put all the tall buildings on Agricola and Quinpool and no one has done that. Perhaps this proposal should move there and seek the 'blessing' of the HT...since they've already endorsed those locations. lol

This isn't only about the HT and Phil Pacey. They're in fact a pretty minor part of the whole process of council votes, potential URB decisions (and appeals from any aggrieved party), etc. I think that 48 storey towers on Agricola or Quinpool are much less likely to be successful than this development downtown.

With this site downtown there's really nobody who can say that they were blindsided by the idea of a tower nearby and in fact there aren't many residents nearby at all. The office tenants and businesses mostly don't care about new towers or like them. Most of the complaints are abstract -- shouldn't be visible from the Citadel, 48 is "too tall", etc. On Agricola there would be more legitimate complaints from residential areas.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

This isn't only about the HT and Phil Pacey. They're in fact a pretty minor part of the whole process of council votes, potential URB decisions (and appeals from any aggrieved party), etc. I think that 48 storey towers on Agricola or Quinpool are much less likely to be successful than this development downtown.

With this site downtown there's really nobody who can say that they were blindsided by the idea of a tower nearby and in fact there aren't many residents nearby at all. The office tenants and businesses mostly don't care about new towers or like them. Most of the complaints are abstract -- shouldn't be visible from the Citadel, 48 is "too tall", etc. On Agricola there would be more legitimate complaints from residential areas.

I would agree and disagree. I would agree about your comment about downtown...but disagree with Agricola. It would all depend on how you develop the area - phasing would be the key.

If someone was able to acquire most of the land around Agricola, especially near the taller buildings facing the commons, you can use the context of those buildings to achieve taller. Since most of the buildings facing the commons are in the 10 to 15 storey range, you could argue that 20 or 25 stories is a logical next step. So you'd build those buildings first...then as you get to the next phase, you could then argue that with 25 storey buildings coming, 30 is the next logical step and so on and so on. The big catch with that is that you are likely never going to get one owner - but each application could piggy back off the one before, which is quite typical.

[someone123]

But that would mean something like a 48 storey building in maybe 15 years or so, if things go well. And even that seems overly optimistic. It is not an alternative for a developer in 2011 looking to build, it's a theoretical medium-term planning change.

Around the Hydrostone they complained about an 11 storey building.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

But that would mean something like a 48 storey building in maybe 15 years or so, if things go well. And even that seems overly optimistic. It is not an alternative for a developer in 2011 looking to build, it's a theoretical medium-term planning change.

Around the Hydrostone they complained about an 11 storey building.

You are correct - it would take time. That's the fly in that line of logic.
I wonder if council would be more willing to accept something that isn't quite as tall - say 35 stories? I just have my doubts if they (council) would be willing to go beyond the ramparts. It's certainly an interesting idea and will create a lot of talk.

As to areas like the Hydrostone or Agricola or Quinpool - if HRM wants to densify the area but keep people involved and also try to do something meaningful, it's been my experience that if you get the area residents and business associations involved in a visioning exercise for the future then you can create new policy that creates a clear future with clear expectations. So in the policy you could spell out specific building height ranges, much like HbD and then a mechanism to achieve the maximum heights. That's just my feeling, but it seems the basic mechanics of HbD is sound and could leverage some public realm improvements to get the building height and density.

Will everyone agree with it - no. But it gives an opportunity to get out to the public and educate and get people involved. I think you'd be genuinely surprised about how much people who support such an exercise would get involved and out number the nimbys.

[beyeas]

I was away all last week and missed all this.

Jeez.

On the whole I am glad to see this proposed, if only to shake up the debate. That is largely where the merit in this lies. In the end, I don't see this going through, but it will at the very least be interesting to see the debate and get a feeling for whether buildings of this height will ever be acceptable, or whether they are just publicly considered verboten. Personally I don't see this or any council in the near future going past the ramparts. Some of the northeast facing view planes maybe, but not the ramparts.

It certainly seems like the HT may not be taking this seriously. Although I do worry that people who are pro development also won't take this opportunity to communicate and push for high density, because I think even most of us don't see this one as feasible.

Personally, although I am glad to see something of this height come along, I wish it were a more inspiring design so that I could feel more passionate about supporting this. At this point I feel like I am only supporting the concept of the density, rather than this particular building/design.

I am going to Boston in early August, and am going to really pay attention to how the mix of old and new works there, and what things I like and don't like. I have always felt that Boston is the city that I most aspire to Halifax being someday. The HT comparison to Quebec City just aren't valid, whereas the fundamentals of Boston are fairly similar (with an order of magnitude increase in population) especially given that they have similar constraints of a relatively small downtown core pinned in by water.

[someone123]

There seem to be a few common but flawed mental images of Halifax that are tenuously connected to reality. One is the "heritage snowglobe". For others, see Tim Bousquet's rants and most of the responses in the comment section. These views are strange because they can generally be disproven by very basic observation of the city (you don't even need to go someplace else!), but unsurprising because people are good at believing what they want to believe.

I agree that Boston is a good comparison -- it's a great city and has a mix of old and new buildings. It's historic but still economically relevant.

I hope these towers are not "verboten" in Halifax. That would be a sign of a city with a very closed-minded culture. Hopefully there will be a real debate and these towers will be considered possible.

They're really not that big of a deal. Niagara Falls is smaller and has taller buildings. Nanaimo has 90,000 people and a condo tower that's something like 27 storeys. Halifax had a 30 storey building 40 years ago. This proposal is only dramatic because the debate has been framed in a very particular way by people who just don't like tall buildings.

[WestEndHali]

I know this would never happen, but I would like to see the citadel bulit up another 5-6 storys. Then it might a true citadel/observation spot again. The viewplanes would be restored and everyone would be happy again. (well until we start wanting to build 40 story buildings in the core)

[WestEndHali]

or maybe even 8-10, that would be better! Go big or go home!!

[q12]

I was driving over the 102 today @ the 103 Interchange where you can see the taller parts of Downtown. I was thinking how cool it would be to see these towers from a place like this about 7 kms outside the downtown core. This is what excites me about this project is how prominent it would be on the skyline from all directions.

This is the view I'm talking about:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...qfc5x2C0vZfkHg&cbp=12,94.26,,2,1.87&z=17



Or how about this view which may be blocked now due to recently constructed homes (www.savetheviewfromgeizerhill.ca oh and think of the children)

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...vWr-dVTSYUCnTA&cbp=12,98.8,,2,-3.99&z=19

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Personally, although I am glad to see something of this height come along, I wish it were a more inspiring design so that I could feel more passionate about supporting this. At this point I feel like I am only supporting the concept of the density, rather than this particular building/design.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. The development (based on what little we can tell from the rendering) is not ugly, but not attractive or special enough for a building that would dominate the skyline that much. Not to mentioned that I don't care for twin towers in prominent locations, and if they are built I prefer different heights like Purdy's Wharf.

What I'd really like is a residential version of one of these proposals (ie not a boxy flat roof and not twin towers).


(by forumer Built Form)

http://www.oxfordbigblocks.com/building-page.php?&building=100-adelaide

Or on the more modest side, even something like these:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread....r-601-613-Yonge-29s)?p=536024#post536024

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5271518&postcount=2666

All of these would represent a new tallest and would be a major benefit to the downtown.

But with all that being said, we just don't get enough development downtown for me to be picky. So if they can find a way to get it approved, I will be very happy.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. The development (based on what little we can tell from the rendering) is not ugly, but not attractive or special enough for a building that would dominate the skyline that much. Not to mentioned that I don't care for twin towers in prominent locations, and if they are built I prefer different heights like Purdy's Wharf.

What I'd really like is a residential version of one of these proposals (ie not a boxy flat roof and not twin towers).



All of these would represent a new tallest and would be a major benefit to the downtown.

But with all that being said, we just don't get enough development downtown for me to be picky. So if they can find a way to get it approved, I will be very happy.

These are good examples. I like the one above which would still look good at a slightly lower height of 87 m (i.e. 285 feet - maximum ramparts height). A similar design could be built at the Tex Park site with a new development agreement.

I was never a big fan of the original twisted towers - they didn't really make me think of sails. The one above actually looks more like a sail to me.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. The development (based on what little we can tell from the rendering) is not ugly, but not attractive or special enough for a building that would dominate the skyline that much. Not to mentioned that I don't care for twin towers in prominent locations, and if they are built I prefer different heights like Purdy's Wharf.

What I'd really like is a residential version of one of these proposals (ie not a boxy flat roof and not twin towers).


(by forumer Built Form)

http://www.oxfordbigblocks.com/building-page.php?&building=100-adelaide

Or on the more modest side, even something like these:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread....r-601-613-Yonge-29s)?p=536024#post536024

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5271518&postcount=2666

All of these would represent a new tallest and would be a major benefit to the downtown.

But with all that being said, we just don't get enough development downtown for me to be picky. So if they can find a way to get it approved, I will be very happy.

These smaples are great. I would like to see some sort of building that represents the area incorporated at the podium level.......something like the excellent TD expansion design. Also, contrary to the wisdom of HRMxD the towers or tower need more glass IMO.

TD expansion:
http://halifaxdowntown.ca/

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I was never a big fan of the original twisted towers - they didn't really make me think of sails. The one above actually looks more like a sail to me.

The current design is supposed to be like sails (I don't really see it).

If I remember correctly the original design was supposed to be reminiscent of Rodin's The Kiss, with one building curling towards the other. At least that I could sort of see as the inspiration. That one curling tower that people showed in the samples above is FAR more like a sail that the new texpark ones!