General Updates and News

[-Harlington-]

^^^ Good stuff hopefully he follows through with this .

More people and less empty lots ??

Make it happen, come on now .

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

“We’re still working with the city on heights,” Halef said.

The peninsula needs to change, he said.

“I don’t know why we are so against density,” Halef said. “Really, we have no skyscrapers in Halifax. We have no tall buildings to identify us.”

With this developer's ambitions of building in the northern and western portions of the peninsula, I'm hoping he gets his sought after height. The corner of Bilby and Robie Street is not within a viewplane.

I'm glad more and more developers are speaking out about this issue.

[haligonia]

While I agree with the fact that the general attitude towards height should change, I disagree with this last sentiment:

“Really, we have no skyscrapers in Halifax. We have no tall buildings to identify us.”

Halifax doesn't need tall buildings to identify itself. Also, tall buildings =/= density. Just look at Victoria. It has a lovely and dense downtown, however most of it's buildings don't exceed 15 stories tall. We need to prioritize density on the peninsula, but we can't get density confused with tall buildings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

With this developer's ambitions of building in the northern and western portions of the peninsula, I'm hoping he gets his sought after height. The corner of Bilby and Robie Street is not within a viewplane.

What I find horrible is that the city has to deal with practical fallout from what is really a transparent political ploy to garner the support of an emotional subset of voters. In most cases the height limits themselves are arbitrary. The important thing seems to be that numbers are made smaller and developers' lives are made more difficult. It is a fabricated adversarial situation that is harming the city and holding it back without really helping anybody. Hopefully it will naturally improve over time as attitudes change. It might also be nudged along a little with the reduction in the size of regional council, although it really depends on who gets elected.

Anyway, the Robie/Young area is a great spot for urban infill. There's lots of room for new buildings, not a lot of existing population, and there is a good framework of transit routes and shops/services for new people who move in. Ideally in 5-10 years there will be another couple thousand people living in the area centred around the Young/Robie/Windsor/Almon.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Halifax doesn't need tall buildings to identify itself. Also, tall buildings =/= density.

I agree, but I think it's sad that tall buildings are ruled out without good reason. Why can't there be a 40 storey building on Young Street or a 50 storey building on Hollis Street, if that's what somebody wants to build? What if somebody came along with an amazing design for a building that happened to be 84 m tall? It would be rejected summarily because some member of the Heritage Trust would be able to get up on the tip of their toes, squint, and see it protruding slightly over one tiny part of the ramparts from within the parade square of the Citadel? —?

The ramparts bylaws are just a pretext used to hide the fundamental, irrational fear of change and can't-do attitude of a vocal minority in the city.

If people don't want highrises, let them move to one of the many dying rural towns in the Maritimes that are not at risk of getting anything over 10 storeys. Halifax is the only real city in the region and should be allowed to grow up in a natural, creative, and interesting way. Halifax in 2030 should not be an expression of the 1970s-era hang-ups of a cabal of Luddites.

[Dmajackson]

I live on one the weird border streets between the North and West ends and I am estatic that Banc has three developments in the plans for my area. I live within a five minute walk of the Robie Street sites so seeing commercial pop up along there should be very pleasant. Robie north of Almon is almost unwalkable because of the sketchy alleys and lack of pedestrian safe areas (ie crosswalks, wide sidewalks).

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

What I find horrible is that the city has to deal with practical fallout from what is really a transparent political ploy to garner the support of an emotional subset of voters. In most cases the height limits themselves are arbitrary. The important thing seems to be that numbers are made smaller and developers' lives are made more difficult. It is a fabricated adversarial situation that is harming the city and holding it back without really helping anybody. Hopefully it will naturally improve over time as attitudes change. It might also be nudged along a little with the reduction in the size of regional council, although it really depends on who gets elected.

Emotional subset of voters?
I'm not going to go all North Korean over Halifax's height limits.

Is tourism arbitrary?
(I suppose you believe that business generated from tourism doesn't make up for the apparent loses by height restrictions? How shall we measure this?)

I'm not implying that Halifax should develop based on what tourists think the city should be, but the city must also acknowledge the need to establish reasons for people to visit. Halifax has been around long enough to have created a solid reputation in North America: a bonsai city surrounded by a massive harbour. The tiny character of the downtown is one of the biggest factors in its charm -- and is well known by tourists.

I think business parks do more harm to a city's core than mere height restrictions.

[someone123]

Has anybody ever demonstrated that tourism would be harmed by the construction of taller buildings?

It keeps getting repeated but that doesn't make it true.

How is it that Quebec City, Boston, New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Vancouver, etc. manage when they have taller buildings than Halifax?

[fenwick16]

I think the argument that tall buildings will keep tourists away is the biggest piece of BS that I have heard in a long time. There are many tourists that come to Halifax from small towns in the Maritimes who are probably impressed by the tall buildings of a city. Tourists from larger cities won't give a thought about some tall buildings. I can't imagine people from Toronto or Montreal being negatively impacted by seeing some tall buildings.

The STV types who feel tourists come to Halifax to see the unobstructed view from the Citadel should be laughed out of the city. Of course people don't travel to Halifax to see the view from the Citadel (they might want to see the Citadel but not an unobstructed view - if that is what they want then they can stay in the small towns). In fact, I like the southern view from the citadel the best since it has the most highrises, the view of the downtown is just so so - it would be better with more highrises.

My only concern with buildings in the 30 - 50 storey range is that they may become expensive to maintain in 30 - 50 years, such as is happening with some condo towers in Toronto. However, I think buildings in the 20-25 storey range should be allowed almost anywhere on the peninsula. To go higher than that, I think a building design should be exceptional.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree, but I think it's sad that tall buildings are ruled out without good reason. Why can't there be a 40 storey building on Young Street or a 50 storey building on Hollis Street, if that's what somebody wants to build? What if somebody came along with an amazing design for a building that happened to be 84 m tall? It would be rejected summarily because some member of the Heritage Trust would be able to get up on the tip of their toes, squint, and see it protruding slightly over one tiny part of the ramparts from within the parade square of the Citadel? —?

If you look at the drawings of the Fenwick redevelopment, it shows that Fenwick Towers could go another 200 feet and still not be over the ramparts maximum. So I think a building on Younge Street could be 50 storeys high and still not be in the ramparts maximum. It might be a good place for a tall observation tower.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Emotional subset of voters?
I'm not going to go all North Korean over Halifax's height limits.

Is tourism arbitrary?
(I suppose you believe that business generated from tourism doesn't make up for the apparent loses by height restrictions? How shall we measure this?)

I'm not implying that Halifax should develop based on what tourists think the city should be, but the city must also acknowledge the need to establish reasons for people to visit. Halifax has been around long enough to have created a solid reputation in North America: a bonsai city surrounded by a massive harbour. The tiny character of the downtown is one of the biggest factors in its charm -- and is well known by tourists.

What drivel.

Tourists do not look at Emporis before making their travel plans and start crossing destinations off their list of potential tours because they have tall buildings.

A tall building on Robie St will not drive potential tourists away. For that matter, neither will a tall building on Hollis St. - especially if it contains a hotel giving a vista that Citadel Hill on its best day never could.

Really, it is time for this type of nonsense to stop for good.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

Has anybody ever demonstrated that tourism would be harmed by the construction of taller buildings?

It keeps getting repeated but that doesn't make it true.

How is it that Quebec City, Boston, New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Vancouver, etc. manage when they have taller buildings than Halifax?

Are any of those cities not dealing with height restrictions? I know New Orleans currently is, as is Boston (but that's not surprising due to its age).

Vancouver recently relaxed their height restrictions to 650m? ...
Will saying goodbye to some mountain views be a big deal? No?

Downtown Halifax is going to finally get some density, despite the expansion of Brunside, and Bayers Lake, and Bedford business parks. We're finally getting a decently established atmosphere downtown. Would breaking the downtown's character harm what's been created? Maybe not at all....

Maybe when Quebec City starts developing tall towers in Old Quebec.

I think many more cities would appear to be very similar to each other if developers could build wherever, whatever they want.

When the day finally comes for the Grain Elevator on the peninsula to be taken down, perhaps a tower could go there? Maybe it could draw inspiration from 'The Bow' in Calgary?

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What drivel.

Tourists do not look at Emporis before making their travel plans and start crossing destinations off their list of potential tours because they have tall buildings.

A tall building on Robie St will not drive potential tourists away. For that matter, neither will a tall building on Hollis St. - especially if it contains a hotel giving a vista that Citadel Hill on its best day never could.

Really, it is time for this type of nonsense to stop for good.

As well as how you address others.

[halifaxboyns]

Considering the interest in the area around Piercey's (with the apartment buildings to go up where Pizza Hut is), the existing towers that are near the sobeys, I think this whole area is ripe for taller buildings.

You won't get the STV crowd screaming — murder, there is good transit in this area and you have a superstore in walking distance. I could see this being a rather large cluster of high density in 15 years time.

As to the issue of a signature skyscraper, people don't really think about those things when they visit cities. I'd really love to see how a group like STV would show that tourism has dropped because of a tall building - you could poke holes in that so badly because of economic circumstances, us $ weakness, etc.

I think the comment made earlier about Victoria having a dense downtown is a reasonable comparison to what Halifax could have. We don't need to be Vancouver with 50 storey condo towers springing up everywhere, even though many want it. I'm not opposed to the idea, but there is the other side of the coin where you have a bunch of buildings in the 15 storey range too. I had originally envissioned Agricola being an area where you could see 30+ stories, but I'd be just as happy with 15-20. That's because either option would bring more people to the core.

[kph06]

Today on Q104 the morning guys and Greasy Gary were going on about building heights and how rediculous the STV groups are,they made their own facebook group "Screw the View", there are quite a few members since this morning. They were actually making some pretty informed arguments, so they must have done some research first.

[q12]

Originally Posted by kph06

Today on Q104 the morning guys and Greasy Gary were going on about building heights and how rediculous the STV groups are,they made their own facebook group "Screw the View", there are quite a few members since this morning. They were actually making some pretty informed arguments, so they must have done some research first.

Screw the View, I love it!!!

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

If you look at the drawings of the Fenwick redevelopment, it shows that Fenwick Towers could go another 200 feet and still not be over the ramparts maximum. So I think a building on Younge Street could be 50 storeys high and still not be in the ramparts maximum. It might be a good place for a tall observation tower.

I was thinking just today that the Cogswell lands might be a good place for an observation tower. It's close to the harbour and the downtown area.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Considering the interest in the area around Piercey's (with the apartment buildings to go up where Pizza Hut is), the existing towers that are near the sobeys, I think this whole area is ripe for taller buildings.

You won't get the STV crowd screaming — murder, there is good transit in this area and you have a superstore in walking distance. I could see this being a rather large cluster of high density in 15 years time.

Don't be so sure. Look at the example of the St. Joseph's project. A relatively modest proposal of a bit over a dozen storeys was shouted down by the locals and the area councillor (shame!!!) as "TOO TALL!!!" so it has been gradually sawed down to what I believe is 9 floors. Totally ridiculous, but there is no reason to believe that a similar thing would not happen on Agricola or anywhere else. The problem is not the buildings, it is the tall-building phobia that has infected much of the populace. Instead of some decent proposals that have some height, which never get approved, we end up with the — like that on the corner of Agricola and Cunard, which goes through without a whimper. Simply unbelievable.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't be so sure. Look at the example of the St. Joseph's project. A relatively modest proposal of a bit over a dozen storeys was shouted down by the locals and the area councillor (shame!!!) as "TOO TALL!!!" so it has been gradually sawed down to what I believe is 9 floors. Totally ridiculous, but there is no reason to believe that a similar thing would not happen on Agricola or anywhere else. The problem is not the buildings, it is the tall-building phobia that has infected much of the populace. Instead of some decent proposals that have some height, which never get approved, we end up with the — like that on the corner of Agricola and Cunard, which goes through without a whimper. Simply unbelievable.

This is what I'm hoping the regional centre plan will finally put to rest. If you set out a minimum starting point (say 5 stories), then an specific area can go up to 25 through bonusing then you'll get some buildings that will go up to the 25, others that will hang back at about 10 because it will be all they are willing to do. But if you tied building height and density to bonusing, the city can leverage private money for public benefit.

It could be HRM's own form of the Beasley Vancouver model - where if an area is going to be intensified, there would also have to be some contribution for things like day care centres, public recreation and parks. This could be how projects like the commons master plan could be funded.

[someone123]

HRM by Design already has that to some degree but unfortunately the heights are way too conservative. In many cases the allowed heights are much lower than existing buildings. I expect that if a similar process were followed for an area like Agricola, the local residents would apply political pressure and heights for new buildings would remain severely limited without good reason.

Young Street is in a much better position because there are few neighbours to complain. Loblaws would not complain about a 16 storey apartment building next door -- they would be happy about it.

Ideally I think developers would be allowed to go much higher on Young, and to be honest it's not even really that clear why 16 is so much better than 20 or 29 or 48. I'm not sure if they would propose buildings of that height but right now they are handicapped for silly reasons.

Similarly we *should* be allowing tons of height around Cogswell because there are few residents nearby. The ramparts bylaw is too restrictive in this case. It costs a lot (no tall buildings anywhere downtown) and produces a very minor, subjective benefit.