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

[Pete Crawford]

I live right across the Thames (river) from the Shard, you'd be surprised how nice it is and how well it fits into the London skyline. Though, London's skyline is basically just an assortment of random crap anyway.

[Hali87]

Extremely random; the only common feature is that everything is of very high quality. I like how many parts of the city look both historic and outright futuristic at once.

[fenwick16]

Here is the Globe and Mail's perspective on the Skye proposal - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...Atom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2349758

Halifax eyes new-look skyline, but not without controversy
Jane Taber
HALIFAX— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 8:22PM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 8:34PM EST



Size matters in Halifax. But a controversial decision at City Hall to consider the development of twin towers that will soar 48 storeys like sails in the wind and dwarf the historical downtown show that a $25-billion shipbuilding contract may matter more.

Haligonians have had a new spring in their step since the federal government last fall awarded the Irving shipyard a contract to build new vessels for the navy. The boost to the local economy has also become an impetus for more residential space downtown.
.
.
.

[Hali87]

The Globe article said that the proposal is for 600 apartments and a hotel, I thought it was just 600 condos?

[JustinMacD]

LOL Can you imagine how different the downtown core would be with 600 extra apartments in that area? It'd be like a completely different city.

[RyeJay]

I'm eagerly awaiting the shadow study for this proposal. With the height limits in Halifax potentially changing, pending Skye's approval, it'll be an interesting preview to see how abbreviated the waterfront's daylight could be.

The waterfront faces toward the north-east, so partially away from the morning sun. Hopefully the study include a winter context, when the arc of the sun is lower in the sky, how much of the afternoon will be cut off.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm eagerly awaiting the shadow study for this proposal. With the height limits in Halifax potentially changing, pending Skye's approval, it'll be an interesting preview to see how abbreviated the waterfront's daylight could be.

The waterfront faces toward the north-east, so partially away from the morning sun. Hopefully the study include a winter context, when the arc of the sun is lower in the sky, how much of the afternoon will be cut off.

I'm curious to see it too - but because of the bulk of the tower, I suspect it won't cut down on the shadowing like a point tower would, since the bulk is actually at the base and the tower is narrow. That's one of the advantages of point towers, but the disadvantage is that you get smaller floor plates and likely smaller units.

While I'm all for more units in the downtown core, part of the importance of doing a broad review (not just of the height limits but of the vision for the regional centre) is to make sure that units in these buildings also bring families to the centre. For someone like me, who is single and doesn't really plan to have kids, a 2 bedroom condo is fine. But if we really want to attract people to the core, it's not just the shops and transportation that will 'save the day'. There also has to be schools, libraries and other social functions too. This is where the point tower model, like those in Vancouver, hasn't always been successful (from what I've read) because you end up with 2 bedroom units in 750 square feet. That's not a lot of space for a family.

That being said - since there are very few schools in the actual dt core - allowing units that aren't fully family oriented might be okay near to the office core and waterfront. But then in areas around SGR, Agricola and Quinpool (on the Halifax side) and just outside the DT Dartmouth area might not be, because the schools are there.

[Hali87]

What exactly is a point tower?

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Hali87

What exactly is a point tower?

A point tower is a term we use around the office - it's basically a tower where the greatest bulk is at the bottom at grade and it narrows as you get taller.

So if you look at a 40 storey tower, usually it's 1st floor and sometimes up to 3 or possibly 5th floors cover the entire parcel to each property line. So let's say by going to all property lines, you create a floor plate of 100,000 square feet. Well once you go above 5 stories, you start to narrow the tower. So perhaps between floors 6 and 20 it's only 75% of the floor plate (75,000 square feet), then from 21-30 it's 60% (60,000 square feet) and then from 31 to the top it's 40% (40,000 square feet). So the 'bulk' reduces as you go higher and then you can move the 'bulk' around to sit the building.

A good example would be the Chrysler Building (off the top of my head). As you can see, the greatest amount of the bulk is on the floors close to grade - then it narrows as you go up to the top. You usually see point towers when you regulate massing through FAR (floor area ratio), more than setbacks and height - at least, that's been my experience. Point Towers reduce the impact of shadowing because the tallest portion (that creates the shadow) is narrow, thus a reduced shadow cast. Whereas the skye towers proposal doesn't do that, so it would likely cast a bigger shadow. However, it's shape may also reduce the shadow cast - I've never dealt with a tower that bent like that before.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I'm curious to see it too - but because of the bulk of the tower, I suspect it won't cut down on the shadowing like a point tower would, since the bulk is actually at the base and the tower is narrow. That's one of the advantages of point towers, but the disadvantage is that you get smaller floor plates and likely smaller units.

While I'm all for more units in the downtown core, part of the importance of doing a broad review (not just of the height limits but of the vision for the regional centre) is to make sure that units in these buildings also bring families to the centre. For someone like me, who is single and doesn't really plan to have kids, a 2 bedroom condo is fine. But if we really want to attract people to the core, it's not just the shops and transportation that will 'save the day'. There also has to be schools, libraries and other social functions too. This is where the point tower model, like those in Vancouver, hasn't always been successful (from what I've read) because you end up with 2 bedroom units in 750 square feet. That's not a lot of space for a family.

That being said - since there are very few schools in the actual dt core - allowing units that aren't fully family oriented might be okay near to the office core and waterfront. But then in areas around SGR, Agricola and Quinpool (on the Halifax side) and just outside the DT Dartmouth area might not be, because the schools are there.

First of all the Vancouver high rise condos in False Creek generally if not always have a consistent floor plate with the exception of the odd podium (even that is relatively rare). Some families live there and there are some larger apartments but the reason for that smaller units predominate is economics. Land and construction costs mean a 3 bedroom downtown condo generally means you are paying what you could get a suburban detached house for. Most families choose a yard more room and a longer commute.

Outside of New York are there any cities in North America where lots of families live downtown?

Someone previously predicted a 2 bedroom for $150K. There is no way they could price units so low. More like a 400 Sq FT bachelor for that price. Even that would be a second floor teaser price.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Point Towers reduce the impact of shadowing because the tallest portion (that creates the shadow) is narrow, thus a reduced shadow cast. Whereas the skye towers proposal doesn't do that, so it would likely cast a bigger shadow. However, it's shape may also reduce the shadow cast - I've never dealt with a tower that bent like that before.

More broadly, knowing Skye's casted shadow will help us understand what the entire waterfront may be facing in the future. I can't help but wonder if the presence of the Citadel Hill is causing any irrational desires for skyscraper construction along this particular waterfront...which faces to the north-east and therefore is already partially turned away from the sun.

If the rampart by-laws are tossed, and the downtown is free to Skye-like developments, any site could potentially redevelop. Existing towers could elongate. Would anyone be in favour of Pier 21 becoming a skyscaper? How much of the day would the waterfront have left to use then?

The waterfront's sun definitely ends, on the Halifax side, once you hit the Purdy's Wharf Towers. If instead the entire waterfront was lined with this kind of height, activities and the value of such on the waterfront would be diminished. Maybe we could develop along the waterfront of Point Pleasant Park? That would be a nice south-eastern facing waterfront that could host lots of height -- even during the winter when the arc of the sun is lower toward the southern horizon.

If Halifax were a city without the Citadel Hill, I still don't believe we'd be obsessing over putting skyscrapers on such a tiny parcel of land -- which is what the reality is between the Citadel Hill and the waterfront -- on an already sun-challenged, Canadian waterfront. Without the Citadel, skyscrapers would still be somewhat setback, just as Fenwick is. Without the Citadel, there would likely be skyscrapers in its place.

For anyone frequenting this north-eastern facing waterfront, skyscrapers make it as pleasing as the darkside of a mountain. For historical preservationists, skyscrapers make it as pleasing as an Old Quebec City with skyscrapers.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

....irrational desires for skyscraper construction along this particular waterfront...which faces to the north-east and therefore is already partially turned away from the sun.

This sounds like you are calling anyone who wants a skyscraper where you don't want one irrational. Not very sound reasoning.
...

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Would anyone be in favour of Pier 21 becoming a skyscaper? How much of the day would the waterfront have left to use then?

Straw man scare tactics.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Maybe we could develop along the waterfront of Point Pleasant Park?

Ditto. With some absurdity thrown in.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

For anyone frequenting this north-eastern facing waterfront, skyscrapers make it as pleasing as the darkside of a mountain. For historical preservationists, skyscrapers make it as pleasing as an Old Quebec City with skyscrapers.

You don't want them. I do. Vive la difference.

[someone123]

I doubt there's much difference between Skye and the already approved United Gulf towers, which would be shorter but quite a bit wider.

The biggest problem currently limiting enjoyment of the waterfront is that it is half parking lot. One of the great ironies in Halifax is how so much fretting goes on over the spectre of over-development that the city is woefully underdeveloped.

You know, like an obese woman who won't go to the gym because she's worried she'll get too muscular.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by someone123

I doubt there's much difference between Skye and the already approved United Gulf towers, which would be shorter but quite a bit wider.

The biggest problem currently limiting enjoyment of the waterfront is that it is half parking lot. One of the great ironies in Halifax is how so much fretting goes on over the spectre of over-development that the city is woefully underdeveloped.

You know, like an obese woman who won't go to the gym because she's worried she'll get too muscular.

Great Post!

I guess no one enjoys spending time on Fifth Avenue because of the shadows? or southern Central Park for that matter.

The fact is people prefer to walk on busy shaded streets rather than empty ones. For a local example look at how many people walk to and from downtown on Sackville St. (with very few buildings on either side) vs Spring Garden Road (despite being often shaded as least on one side.)

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

This sounds like you are calling anyone who wants a skyscraper where you don't want one irrational. Not very sound reasoning...

"I can't help but wonder if the presence of the Citadel Hill is causing any irrational desires for skyscraper construction along this particular waterfront" is what I posted. In what way have I alluded to 'actually' mean everyone?

I suppose the soft ones bruise first.

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

Straw man scare tactics.

A legitimate question.

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

Ditto. With some absurdity thrown in.

I'll reiterate the point of it being more south facing than the downtown waterfront, in case the sarcasm wasn't obvious for you.

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

You don't want them. I do. Vive la difference.

But I want them as well. I'm an advocate for skyscrapers in Halifax. I am simply concerned with skysrapers being placed so close to the waterfront, just because the Citadel is in the way.

I realise this is the downtown and is a high focus for development, in which I participate -- but even large metropolises have their tall towers setback from potentially sunless waterfronts.

[q12]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

But I want them as well. I'm an advocate for skyscrapers in Halifax. I am simply concerned with skysrapers being placed so close to the waterfront, just because the Citadel is in the way.

I think we have been infiltrated by a member of save the view.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by q12

I think we have been infiltrated by a member of save the view.

Actually, I don't support the many view planes that've been created, which restrict height even more than the rampart by-laws. HRMbyDesign heights are too conservative, no question.

[halifaxboyns]

I get the sense RyeJay that some of us (myself included) aren't really understanding your concern very well. So for me - perhaps you could help me flesh it out a little bit?

Am I correct in thinking that your concern is having the taller buildings adjacent to the waters edge because of potential shadowing effects on say the pedestrians along Lower Water Street or the waterfront boardwalk? If so, then your concern with the height of Skye would be the impact that the building would have on these pedestrian environments on Lower Water and Waterfront boardwalk (or even on the streets directly around the Skye site)?

I just want to understand your concern better. I'd also like to hear what your thought would be on a solution? That might better help people to understand your point and not assume you are one of those STV people.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I get the sense RyeJay that some of us (myself included) aren't really understanding your concern very well. So for me - perhaps you could help me flesh it out a little bit?

Am I correct in thinking that your concern is having the taller buildings adjacent to the waters edge because of potential shadowing effects on say the pedestrians along Lower Water Street or the waterfront boardwalk? If so, then your concern with the height of Skye would be the impact that the building would have on these pedestrian environments on Lower Water and Waterfront boardwalk (or even on the streets directly around the Skye site)?

I just want to understand your concern better. I'd also like to hear what your thought would be on a solution? That might better help people to understand your point and not assume you are one of those STV people.

I think thats the reason.

I to think the height might have a negative impact on the waterfront. Just watching the impact the Citadel has on waterfront during sunset is great. Add the height, albeit narrow buildings only increase it; not that i am against high building. If it were me i would look at "bookending" the downtown with height (cogswell and port lands) leaving lower (to a max of 15) in the middle.

I just wish they would get on with what has been approved. With reworking of the floor plans i am sure they can get just as many units.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

I just wish they would get on with what has been approved. With reworking of the floor plans i am sure they can get just as many units.

I suspect that if they were eager to proceed as soon as possible they would not be amending their plans like this. The new proposal, even if successful, will take a long time to be approved.