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

[Northend Nerd]

I saw on their Facebook page this morning that they are bringing it before council next Tuesday.

Here is the post -

Skye Halifax - Facebook

"Our case goes before Council Tuesday, Feb 21st (FOR SURE THIS TIME!). Your support is paramount! Go to: skyehalifax.ca & sign up!"

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Terrible webpage. I still have no idea what to make of this proposal. The only progress seems to be in the rhetoric department. For the biggest proposal in the city's history we have two low quality renderings, and one shows giant balls in the lobby. The developer: bailed on the original project for this site, after what must have been a very costly approval process; took years to begin construction on a twelve storey building in the burbs; has recently been on the losing end of a lawsuit; bailed on the demolition of the Mt. St. Vincent Motherhouse part-way through; and has several large projects proposed around town where construction doesn't seem to be starting anytime soon. Zero credibility developer, no real renderings or site plans are public, a hugely controversial project, other residential buildings already under construction (Vic, Trillium) and others approved or proposed (Sisters Sites, Alexander, Fenwick) that will almost certainly start beforehand. This seems exceptionally unlikely on so many fronts.

[RyeJay]

I do believe on February 21st, the developer isn't just presenting the Skye proposal to council -- but is also requesting an extension for the approved Twisted Sisters in the event Skye is downright refused.

As Halifax Hillbilly has mentioned, the developer's effort toward the Skye proposal seems oddly cheap and effortless. Many believe it's simply a fake project.

The developer may have just been testing the waters for Haligonian height demands by the public. Whatever the case -- the Twisted Sisters were approved and the city wants those sites filled.

[halifaxboyns]

I wonder if this is going to council for a case initiation? If it requires a DA, there must always be a report to council requesting permission to begin the DA process?

If that's the case - the developer doesn't get a chance to speak, so I can't see how he would even be able to plead his case?

Unless it is actually a full out case that was never put on their website and had a PIM already? If so, I don't recall hearing about it?

[halifaxboyns]

Btw, if you want a really twisted tower - have a look at this.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Btw, if you want a really twisted tower - have a look at this.

Nice! This architectural trend is definitely eye-catching. The more twisting features I see on proposals, the more I have the impression of buildings taking the form of tornadoes. I love it!

As for the United Gulf Twisted Sisters, I'm somewhat on the fence in my opinion of their aesthetic impact. I believe a twisted architectural form is more appreciable within a skyline not as short as Halifax's. The neighbouring building is The Maritime Centre, which my eyes see as an appropriate podium of a much taller tower in a city with an ample amount of vertical infrastructure. The Twisted Sisters I like due to their physical resemblance of The Maritime Centre, but because of this assertion I find the twister tower along Sackville Street a bit awkward.

On the other hand, this development's great contribution to the downtown's density would be undeniable. Clusters of box-like towers reminds me of Ottawa's density.

[Empire]

Perhaps a building could be built on the Tex-Park site like one in this link so the STV could really get their knickers in a twist.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/galleries/gallery-e6frflw0-1225904436258?page=1

[halifaxboyns]

Looks like my guess was correct - the report going to council is to initiate a development agreement, it's not a public hearing.

Developer poised to take tower project to Halifax council

$350m project has two 48-storey structures

After more than a year in the planning stages, the proposed $350-million Skye Halifax project appears ready to go before regional council.

United Gulf Developments Ltd. posted a Twitter message on Thursday stating that its proposal will be discussed at the next council meeting on Tuesday.

“What’s going to happen on Tuesday night is the initiation of the discussion, to initiate the process leading to a public information meeting, and to get the ball rolling on the required amendments that we need to have done in order to accommodate the development,” said Patrick LeRoy, the company’s vice-president of operations.

“I would have preferred that it would happen earlier, but I know that staff is extremely busy and there’s a lot of activity in (the municipality) in terms of development.”

The council agenda will be made public today, city spokeswoman Shaune MacKinlay said.

The proposed 48-storey towers at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets, bent to look like twin sails catching the wind, will be connected via a 13,000-square-foot lobby that will have high ceilings and two large, glass-like balls seemingly suspended in the air.

An application was submitted to Halifax Regional Municipality’s planning department on July 20.

In the lead up to Tuesday’s potential council discussion, the company has set up a website with details and a page where people can indicate their support. At least 450 people have so far left their name.

The rest of the story is here

[halifaxboyns]

Here is the initiation report. I'm not surprised at the recommendation.

[RyeJay]

I hope council's response is: Either commit to the previously approved 27-storey Twister Sister towers -- or -- enjoy your new, shorter HRM by Design height limits.

This developer has been twisting the city's arm for far too long.

[Keith P.]

That Richard Butts initial "blob" is a sight to behold.

So we will have an empty lot in the center of downtown for another 10 years, while someone who wants to spend $100 million is turned down. That's Halifax.

[halifaxboyns]

Frankly, I struggle with this one. I personally believe in compromise - that parts of downtown shouldn't be subject to any rampart rules if outside of a viewplane. But until the rule is struck, I'm willing to live with it.

But this just seems to off the wall. Considering the reputation of this developer, I'd rather turn down the project and just give them an extension on twisted sisters than see Keith's scenario play out.

I'm really unsure on this. I'm going to sit back and watch this play out, should be interesting. The even more interesting thing is that the initiation report has no public input or debate - the only people who council can address is staff. Although they might be able to ask the developer up - but I don't recall a time they did. Plus there is no appeal of this decision, so if they don't initiate the process - that's it. Unlike Lake Banook where failing to give 1st reading to schedule a public hearing does provide an appeal.

[q12]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That Richard Butts initial "blob" is a sight to behold.

So we will have an empty lot in the center of downtown for another 10 years, while someone who wants to spend $100 million is turned down. That's Halifax.

$350m project.

Source


The horror! Oh no it's the invasion of the tall buildings. Quick someone fire the cannon.

[eastcoastal]

This joke (please please tell me it's a joke) proposal is wasting tax dollars paying for staff to write a proposal on it?

[someone123]

Why is this being labeled a half-hearted or fake looking proposal? The developer has produced a basic website and has submitted the required plans to the city for consideration. Was the proposal for the Trillium or King's Wharf more developed at this stage?

The ramparts bylaw is silly and I have yet to hear a good reason why there should not be 48 storey buildings in Halifax, or why they are that different from 30 storey buildings already approved or built.

I am not holding my breath on this one but I think that the whole sad United Gulf situation highlights some of the worst aspects of Halifax -- the knee-jerk conservatism, the lack of ambition, the closed-minded, irrational groupthink, and the overall incompetence that seems to turn every significant undertaking into a pathetic multi-year struggle. Halifax would be a much better city if it didn't have these problems.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by someone123

Why is this being labeled a half-hearted or fake looking proposal? The developer has produced a basic website and has submitted the required plans to the city for consideration. Was the proposal for the Trillium or King's Wharf more developed at this stage?

The ramparts bylaw is silly and I have yet to hear a good reason why there should not be 48 storey buildings in Halifax, or why they are that different from 30 storey buildings already approved or built.

I am not holding my breath on this one but I think that the whole sad United Gulf situation highlights some of the worst aspects of Halifax -- the knee-jerk conservatism, the lack of ambition, the closed-minded, irrational groupthink, and the overall incompetence that seems to turn every significant undertaking into a pathetic multi-year struggle. Halifax would be a much better city if it didn't have these problems.

Agree with everything you're saying here. Halifax needs to decide if it wants to move forward or continue to see its brightest get frustrated and leave for Toronto, Vancouver, etc.

[q12]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree with everything you're saying here. Halifax needs to decide if it wants to move forward or continue to see its brightest get frustrated and leave for Toronto, Vancouver, etc.

I agree too. Do we want to be just a tourist attraction for senior citizens or an exciting place for young people to live in and bring up a family?

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by q12

I agree too. Do we want to be just a tourist attraction for senior citizens or an exciting place for young people to live in and bring up a family?

Tall buildings =/= young people staying.

If we want young people to stay here, we need to do more than build tall buildings. Actually, I would argue that that shouldn't even be our focus. We need more people living downtown. We need to invest in job sectors that are growing and attracting young workers (ie. Film/TV, New Media, etc.) and we need to give our transit system a massive overhaul. If we get a few tall buildings while doing that, great. But just allowing developers to build massive structures won't do anything for our desirability as a place to live and work.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Tall buildings =/= young people staying.

If we want young people to stay here, we need to do more than build tall buildings. Actually, I would argue that that shouldn't even be our focus. We need more people living downtown. We need to invest in job sectors that are growing and attracting young workers (ie. Film/TV, New Media, etc.) and we need to give our transit system a massive overhaul. If we get a few tall buildings while doing that, great. But just allowing developers to build massive structures won't do anything for our desirability as a place to live and work.

You clearly fail to see the many contradictions inherent in what you just wrote.

I recommend this article from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/8387/1/

[Wishblade]

Yeah, I don't see how you get a higher density of younger people and a vibrant downtown without tall buildings. The more tall buildings you have, the more residents and tenants you get, and therefor the more business/nightlife/things to do you get. The way I see it is for every floor that gets lopped off a building on the penninsula, thats probably about 10 more homes/units that will end up in the burbs.