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

[RyeJay]

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.

My concern for sunlight is solely for the waterfront boardwalk in this context. Shade will definitely be cast onto streets throughout the downtown as the core gains more density, which I will greet with glee; nevertheless, this leads to a greater importance of public space for this growing, more urbanised downtown. Aside from the businesses that use the waterfront throughout the year, and especially during the summer tourism months, the waterfront is a key factor in attracting all the residential towers for which we’re passionately striving.

I am quite frankly thrilled that the old Discovery Centre/Reflections and the Roy Building escaped the wrath of HRMbyDesign. The downtown needs to host more towers of their magnitude to expand upon the municipality’s revenue base and to further support downtown commercial and retail with increasing local residents and visitors– and perhaps even more important for the “STV people,” to capture more opportunities for actually saving Halifax’s architectural heritage through redevelopments like the Waterside.

HRMbyDesign needs to be re-visited at the very least, and perhaps even completely re-done, not only for the riddance of the many view planes that shouldn’t be in the way of taller developments, but because some fundamentally important details, streetscapes being one example, are not properly addressed and re-enforced. As a quick aside, yet still relating to Halifax’s street planning blunders, I think it’s completely absurd that the HRM is not in-progress of burying all of its utility lines.

I support the rampart by-laws as a compromise between the spectrum of those wanting to build the tallest skyscrapers and those wanting to return the downtown to under 4 storeys – and mostly because I see the Citadel Hill as a business asset; as well, I’m very fond of the resulting and still forming plateau skyline, seen quite clearly from the Macdonald Bridge for example. I would most certainly not dread the loss of this plateau if an out of character skyscraper were to breach the horizon drawn by the shorter buildings. I want Halifax to build tall, iconic towers... but so close to this waterfront? This waterfront does not face toward the sun. I am not exaggerating when I say this waterfront faces north-east. Everyone has access to maps on google and bing.

The Citadel Hill is a sword with numerous edges in this regard. Not only are there rampart by-laws preventing height, not only are there many specialised view planes preventing even more height – but if that damn fort would just vanish from history...this now historically vacant spot is likely where the city would have, by now, built much taller buildings. Clusters of buildings that bear of Fenwick are not something overly fictional to deduce. This may actually be somewhat conservative, evidently as Fenwick’s height is apparently so short because of the rampart by-laws.

Fenwick’s distance from the Citadel must also be considered with its distance from the waterfront because this is another important factor in why its height was permitted. A Fenwick proposal, 32 storeys/98 metres tall, would never be approved for a site as close as Skye’s cuddled proximity to the boardwalk. Fenwick may be wider, yes – but just as Skye is taller and twined.

United Gulf is pushing the narrative that council holds back development. Now that developments are getting underway, I’m hoping people see this as evidence that council does indeed approve developments: such as the Twisted Sisters. Allowing Skye to go further in the approval process is, in a way, calling the developer’s possible bluff: Now United Gulf must make available at least semi-decent renderings and a brief assortment of relevant studies.

I would be in favour of forcing United Gulf to either develop or sell the lot... or pay higher tax rates for their intensions of continuing to hold onto the site. I am not totally sure how harshly this would breach the contract and what the fall-out would be, but I think council needs to take a good hard look at the potential reality of this site staying void for another decade. With no plans from United Gulf for selling it to another developer that would actually embark on making something of it, the city should not have to completely suffer the lost revenue.

[halifaxboyns]

Thanks for the clarification - that's helpful at least too me.

I've been thinking more about the whole issue of protected views and the citadell. It came into mind last night when I was watching the back to back re-runs of Top Chef Season 9 (which is being done in Texas). They are doing various episodes in San Antonio, Dallas and Austin.

The first episode that was in the 2 pack this week was a challenge to cook in a random restaurant after picking up supplies on a bike, because they had to cook for Pee Wee Herman. The 'task' aside, they had to go back to the Alamo and then provide the lunch. One of the things that struck me as I watched these chefs bike back to the Alamo was how squat the actual 'fortress' site was, but yet how around it there were tall buildings. So it got me thinking to look at it all. The Alamo is a great example of how you can still have the historic nature, but modern development around. This is a google map link, but if you look around the Alamo - there are buildings of all different heights around it and that doesn't seem to detract from the historic nature of the site.

I guess I'm starting to mellow on my position about the viewplanes in that, while I think the viewplanes themselves should be retained but updated - I'm starting to find I don't have a problem with this whole issue of a tall building being scene inside the fort.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I guess I'm starting to mellow on my position about the viewplanes in that, while I think the viewplanes themselves should be retained but updated - I'm starting to find I don't have a problem with this whole issue of a tall building being scene inside the fort.

I was in Quebec City for winter carnival a few weeks ago. Not only can you see numerous "tall" modern buildings from the citadel as well as from various spots within old Quebec, one of the most dominant things that you can see when standing in the centre of the citadel (the local equivalent of the rampart rule measurement) is the Frontenac. It HUGELY amuses me that if you were to apply Halifax development rules to Quebec City, the Frontenac could not be built!!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I was in Quebec City for winter carnival a few weeks ago. Not only can you see numerous "tall" modern buildings from the citadel as well as from various spots within old Quebec, one of the most dominant things that you can see when standing in the centre of the citadel (the local equivalent of the rampart rule measurement) is the Frontenac. It HUGELY amuses me that if you were to apply Halifax development rules to Quebec City, the Frontenac could not be built!!

In my opinion the #1 thing about the Skye proposal (that is actually likely to happen) is that it will provoke some real debate over the ramparts bylaws and other old rules that are in many cases really out there.

Halifax has an old mythology of half-truths and superstitions that have to be destroyed if the city is to move forward. They are slowly disappearing but it is slow and painful. Lots of people still think that empty grass always makes things better, that the downtown should be half parking lots, or that the city runs off of tourism that will evaporate if anything new is built.

[halifaxboyns]

One thing I find amusing is how Park's Canada has stepped into the YMCA proposal and this whole viewplane argument saying that the importance of the citadell as a tourism destination will be damaged or destroyed if the city progresses.

However, they have been having record attendance numbers year over year. I'd like to see how the attendance numbers have been going up since about 1977. I'm sure you could make a pattern connection to dips in attendance when economic circumstances have occured (like a recession) and how numbers have risen in economic good times. Frankly, if I were working for HRM I'd be looking up how to FOIP that information.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I guess I'm starting to mellow on my position about the viewplanes in that, while I think the viewplanes themselves should be retained but updated - I'm starting to find I don't have a problem with this whole issue of a tall building being scene inside the fort.

To hell with the viewplanes, in my opinion. If a building were to be seen from inside the fort, it wouldn't be a big deal. If Skye were instead proposed for The Sister Sites, it wouldn't be a big deal.

But Skye is proposed so close to open, public space along the waterfront...
We'll see what the wind and shadow studies reveal.

Even if Skye does get approved, I'll still be happy because ultimately I want Halifax to urbanise as much as possible in order to better weather future economic hardships.

Politically, I believe the maintenance of the rampart by-laws are a much more likely compromise in the landscape. I would except most Haligonians to be against the severe height limits conceived of in HRMbyDesign.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

One thing I find amusing is how Park's Canada has stepped into the YMCA proposal and this whole viewplane argument saying that the importance of the citadell as a tourism destination will be damaged or destroyed if the city progresses.

However, they have been having record attendance numbers year over year. I'd like to see how the attendance numbers have been going up since about 1977. I'm sure you could make a pattern connection to dips in attendance when economic circumstances have occured (like a recession) and how numbers have risen in economic good times. Frankly, if I were working for HRM I'd be looking up how to FOIP that information.

I still contend my theory is correct and there are people associated with HT or STV that work for Parks Canada in Halifax.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I still contend my theory is correct and there are people associated with HT or STV that work for Parks Canada in Halifax.

It's too bad how political this stuff is. Instead of trying to do what's best for the city, it feels like there is a small group of anti-development folks who are not interested in listening and try to do whatever they can to subvert the whole development process. It is bad enough that the advice from committees or reports like the Parks Canada one is essentially useless propaganda.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's too bad how political this stuff is. Instead of trying to do what's best for the city, it feels like there is a small group of anti-development folks who are not interested in listening and try to do whatever they can to subvert the whole development process. It is bad enough that the advice from committees or reports like the Parks Canada one is essentially useless propaganda.

Yeah, exactly. Responsible public servants and politicians aren't supposed to just go with their opinions.

I see it in council all of the time, just pure opinion based voting with no actual metrics taken into account, or even public opinion.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I guess I'm starting to mellow on my position about the viewplanes in that, while I think the viewplanes themselves should be retained but updated - I'm starting to find I don't have a problem with this whole issue of a tall building being scene inside the fort.

I struggle to see how the Citadel would lose any authenticity if buildings could be seen from inside. Based on that logic, we should move Shearwater so that there isn't the risk of helicopters being seen from inside.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

In my opinion the #1 thing about the Skye proposal (that is actually likely to happen) is that it will provoke some real debate over the ramparts bylaws and other old rules that are in many cases really out there.

Halifax has an old mythology of half-truths and superstitions that have to be destroyed if the city is to move forward. They are slowly disappearing but it is slow and painful. Lots of people still think that empty grass always makes things better, that the downtown should be half parking lots, or that the city runs off of tourism that will evaporate if anything new is built.

I plan to attend some more of the RP+5 meetings and something that I absolutely will be bringing up is the notion that being progressive will destroy the tourism sector.

First of all, why are we planning a city for tourists? We should be planning a city for US.

Second: Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Philadelphia, Vancouver. Orders of magnitude more tourists then we have here, yet no Citadel. How do they do it?? The fact is that people visit these cities because they have tons of interesting things to do and see, and so do we. The Citadel/view from the Citadel is just one of these things, and to many (most?) tourists, not the most important. I worked at a popular bar near the boardwalk that saw hundreds of cruise ship passengers every day all summer, and I would say that over half of them had never heard of the Citadel.

Finally: heritage is not a static phenomenon. Everything that we build is a part of our heritage. To say that only Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian buildings "show our heritage" is short-sighted at best and xenophobic at worst. Simply put, all of the things that we have built, and that remain, capture a moment in history, whether we want them to or not. That goes for the buildings that we are building now. Would people rather look back on the 2010s as an era where Halifax finally got to be quaint just like Guelph or Victoria or Sherbrooke, or as an era where we actually got serious about increasing density, increasing sustainability, increasing livability, lay the groundwork for an effective transit system, actually started to attract immigrants, etc? Having a handful of new taller buildings downtown isn't about disrespecting the past, it's about respecting the future, and the buildings themselves would be a testament to us actually following through with our goals and objectives.

When I look at Vancouver's skyline, I don't see sterile, overwhelming skyscrapers that make Vancouver look "just like Toronto". I see a city that Canada should be proud of, because they're one of the best examples IN THE WORLD of a city actually achieving the qualities that all of the other cities are striving for, Halifax included. And they certainly didn't get there by making sure any post-war buildings were hidden from the tourists.

[Hali87]

Something that I think should be acknowledged though, so I'll just say this before I forget, is that I think a lot of us (including the people running the planning sessions) assume that everyone wants a "vibrant", "pedestrian-friendly", "transit-friendly", "family-friendly", "tourist-friendly", "student-friendly", "business-friendly" core with lots of "things to see" and "things to do". We need to remember that not everyone agrees with this; some people, though they'll admit it only to varying degrees, literally moved to Halifax because it was a quaint, quiet collection of small towns that was easy to drive around in. Though I would argue that our self-image has changed over the past few decades, many people definitely want to preserve these qualities which may or may not actually still exist.

Case in point: "we shouldn't have tall buildings downtown". .. but we do, and we have for the 24 years that I've lived here. Are you really going to pretend that Scotia Square, Purdy's Wharf and the financial district don't exist, or are somehow temporary? The fact is, tall buildings have been "a part of our heritage" much longer than I've been alive. Purdy's Wharf is just as much a part of "my Halifax" as Granville Mall is.

[robotropolis]

I don't care how tall they are. Just make them look nice and not like two cigarettes in need of a double dose of Cialis. That's all I ask.

[NewBalearic]

Originally Posted by robotropolis

I don't care how tall they are. Just make them look nice and not like two cigarettes in need of a double dose of Cialis. That's all I ask.

Agreed!

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by robotropolis

I don't care how tall they are. Just make them look nice and not like two cigarettes in need of a double dose of Cialis. That's all I ask.

To be fair, the developer of Skye hasn't been enthusiastic enough to produce decent renderings -- so no one really has an idea of how wonderful or horrible the proposal may look.

I certainly hope they get rid of the two floating balls inside the lobby.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I certainly hope they get rid of the two floating balls inside the lobby.

I don't know, I think those two balls are essential to the overall phallic quality of this proposal....

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

We need to remember that not everyone agrees with this; some people, though they'll admit it only to varying degrees, literally moved to Halifax because it was a quaint, quiet collection of small towns that was easy to drive around in. Though I would argue that our self-image has changed over the past few decades, many people definitely want to preserve these qualities which may or may not actually still exist.

This is particularly true of some older people who remember the city how it was in the 50's, 60's, or 70's back when it was much smaller than it is today. The highrises are sometimes universally regarded as "mistakes" that should not be added to today. They may or may not think about the prospect of, say, the Maritime Centre looming over the city indefinitely if they get their way.

Another crowd is the neighbourhood people who probably never dreamed that their quiet corner of the city would suddenly get a highrise building. For a long period of time during the 90's Halifax's urban core was pretty much static. Now that the economy is doing better people have had to come to terms with the new development.

In both cases I think it's getting better, and it's important to remember that these are the 5% or 10% groups, even if they are 40% or 80% of the public consultation sessions. Their voice is not the only important voice.

[Hali87]

http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/site/entry/hrm-by-design-stck-to-the-plan

Interesting blog from Paul Mackinnon. The URL contains a bit of a spoiler though..

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I don't know, I think those two balls are essential to the overall phallic quality of this proposal....

You've reminded me of how most people on this forum once believed this project to be a total joke.

I wonder the degree of surprise in everyone if United Gulf ended up disengaging from this approval process (because Skye is a fake proposal). Floating balls..or not, I've never before been so anxious about renderings. This could be iconic -- or an iconic mess.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Would people rather look back on the 2010s as an era where Halifax finally got to be quaint just like Guelph or Victoria or Sherbrooke ...

This is interesting too. A lot of people do compare Halifax to those cities and, while there are some similarities, the comparisons are strained.

Victoria is not much smaller than Halifax but has a much more pronounced "second city" feel because it has a much larger neighbour nearby. Halifax is more of a kind of hybrid of Vancouver and Victoria because it also has the bank offices, port, etc. Downtown Halifax has more than twice the office space and, to put things into perspective, the largest office tower in Victoria is only 11 storeys tall and has 1/3 the square footage of the Maritime Centre. For better or worse, there's no equivalent of Scotia Square or Purdy's Wharf in Victoria. It's just a very different downtown core. Halifax's inner city is much larger as well because Halifax is an older city. Victoria was very small back in 1880 or so and doesn't have, say, neighbourhoods of rowhouses.

People also try to liken downtown Halifax to Quebec's Old Town, but you can barely find a single block in downtown Halifax without a modern building. The blend of old and new much more like, say, Montreal, but on a smaller scale.