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

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's interesting to read the comments based on that article.

Personally I think she made some good points and I agree with a lot that she said. What I mostly took away from it is that a broader approach should be taken to improve the downtown area, which I've also read here. I agree with this.

I've read many comments on this forum of too many empty lots and a general run-down appearance of the downtown area - I agree with taking the measures to keep developers from creating eyesore empty lots (for years on end in some cases) while waiting for something to be built. I actually like the idea of balancing the tax situation between downtown and the suburban business sites to make it more attractive to maintain downtown sites.

Nothing wrong with doing something to make downtown nicer to look at, more pedestrian friendly, etc. Landscaping, planters, benches, whatever... just make sure they are attractively done and not just poured concrete or some other similarly cheap appearing item.

It seems like a common idea on this forum is that we must make all cities the same... high density, tall buildings, etc. I do question sometimes whether Halifax needs that? It certainly needs some of it, but I think Halifax as a city has a different character and thus needs a different line of thought. Combining heritage and "new" (though "new" doesn't last very long before it becomes hum-drum if no real character and quality is built into the design) is a great idea, but so is designing a new building to fit its surroundings rather than something that sticks out like a sore thumb.

One point I've gotta make... of what significance is the value of the author's home? IMHO, she is giving her opinion that living downtown should not only be available to the well-to-do. It is irrelevant, in my opinion, whether she is well off or not. Just because you can afford to live in a higher-cost dwelling doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to recognize that not everybody can afford to do that. I think details of one's personal life should be kept out of such discussions.

This is all just my 2¢, but I'm not an architect, developer or urban planner... just a man on the street giving his humble opinion. Not trying to offend and no comment is aimed at any one individual, so please don't take it that way.

[RyeJay]

From our newly elected batch of councilors -- how many of them are likely to vote 'yes' on United Gulf's request for an extension on the Twisted Sisters?

Would anyone care to hazard a guess?

[Hali87]

Perhaps some of them, but United Gulf has openly stated several times that they submitted a new proposal for the site (Skye) because the Twisted Sisters would no longer have been economical to build. Because of the unorthodox design and use of quality materials, the units would have to be priced outside the range of most potential residents/commercial tenants, making it difficult to gain a return on investment. Add to this the municipality's new policy of requiring affordable housing, and Twisted Sisters becomes even less attractive for most involved. Maybe this site would be exempt (grandfathered?) from the affordable housing policy, but I would not necessarily consider that a good thing.

I liked the aesthetics of the TS design better than Skye, but at least Skye is being designed with affordability as a major priority, without being a generic design or being clad with concrete or vinyl. If Skye is rejected, then I think a good compromise would be a simpler design that conforms to HRMBD and has a variety of unit sizes and prices. But I don't think that the original TS proposal is on the table.

[someone123]

That was my understanding too. I still wonder why they let the old DA lapse, however. I think their chances of getting approval for Skye are slim, but their chances of getting the original height "grandfathered" were probably pretty good. Had they done that they would have been able to create a simpler design and build up to 27 floors instead of 20 or so.

I still think it was pretty sketchy how HbD in some cases involved height limits lower than outstanding DAs or even existing buildings. It all has the mark of being crafted by special interests and abstract planning principles rather than the diverse practical concerns of everybody impacted by downtown development. Some people claim that everybody "had their say" back in 2006 or whenever it was that the consultations for height limits took place, but that's totally unfair for property owners like the YMCA or CBC that may have had no idea what they would eventually want to do with their land. Similarly few potential downtown residents were represented. The only fair way to represent the diverse interests downtown would have been to implement more liberal height limits somewhere in between hard limits like the ramparts and the desires of groups like the friends of the Public Gardens. That is clearly not what happened, and unsurprisingly the people who had a disproportionate say back then are now the ones claiming that everything's been settled and from now on we have to abide by what they decided.

[RyeJay]

I'm curious about pro-Twisted Sisters councillors because an extension request was submitted along with the Skye Halifax proposal. Since I'm quite sure Skye Halifax will be rejected, there is more potential that United Gulf may avoid the stunted height limits under HRMbyDesign through an 'ok' for the Twisted Sisters.

To make the towers more affordable, untwist them and use cheaper quality building materials (although, I don't desire cheaper building materials).

I would be very disappointed if United Gulf were forced to build shorter. They purchased that site with a maximum height in mind.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm curious about pro-Twisted Sisters councillors because an extension request was submitted along with the Skye Halifax proposal. Since I'm quite sure Skye Halifax will be rejected, there is more potential that United Gulf may avoid the stunted height limits under HRMbyDesign through an 'ok' for the Twisted Sisters.

I hope I am mistaken and that they do get an extension that they can leverage to come up with redesigned 27 storey towers.

I believe Sloane pushed to have the old DA discharged ASAP. Funny how in some cases old decisions are supposed to be final (no messing with HbD!), but in other cases councillors seem happy to revisit old votes again and again.

I see merits to both sides of the argument with Skye, but I think it's unfair to insist that United Gulf be subject to height limits imposed after they came forward with a proposal for their property, particularly when council was willing to grandfather last-minute proposals like the Discovery Centre. I also think that slightly taller towers would look great next to new buildings like the Bank of Canada tower and Nova Centre (which will be a bit farther up the hill).

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

I hope I am mistaken and that they do get an extension that they can leverage to come up with redesigned 27 storey towers.

I believe Sloane pushed to have the old DA discharged ASAP.

The last time CTV reported on Skye Halifax, it was mentioned that the Twisted Sisters are still on the table for consideration.

I know Waye supports height around Cogswell -- but I am certainly hoping he would also vote 'yes' on an extension for these two 27 storey towers, which can be re-designed more simply.

I think it's fair to say that Waye utterly opposes Skye Halifax. I would hope he is for compromise, however... The downtown needs the extra tax revenue and residential population in order to expand core businesses.

(The money to restore the streetscapes around the heritage buildings stretching from city hall all the way to the St. Mary's Cathedral has to come from somewhere.)

Voting 'no' on an extension for the TS would force United Gulf back to the drawing board, which would ensure a void site for much longer, and this clearly won't benefit any of us...

Originally Posted by someone123

I also think that slightly taller towers would look great next to new buildings like the Bank of Canada tower and Nova Centre (which will be a bit farther up the hill).

My thoughts exactly!
Approving the TS would allow developments of different heights, avoiding that 'block' effect, and stay within the rampart heights.

I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope this new council, led by pro-downtown Savage, makes the most rational decision.

[fenwick16]

Here is the status as of October 11, 2012.

(source: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/Case174461591GranvilleStreet.pdf )

BACKGROUND

In 2006, Regional Council approved a development agreement with United Gulf to allow a 27 storey (87 metre) mixed-use building, comprised of two 23 storey towers above a four storey podium at 1591 Granville Street, Halifax (Map 1). The agreement requires that construction of the building commence by March 21, 2010. United Gulf did not proceed with the project or request a time extension and the site remains undeveloped. The development agreement has now expired and HRM has adopted new policies and regulations in the downtown that would no longer allow a building of a similar height and shape that was approved in 2006.

In June 2011, Regional Council began to consider the possible discharge of the development agreement. In response to Council’s action United Gulf stated, in a presentation to Regional Council, that discharging the existing development agreement should not occur for reasons that include that the company was:

1. under the impression that the expiry date was actually in March 2011, due to an appeal to Council’s approval, and that any request that it might make to Regional Council was not too far beyond that date; and

2. that United Gulf was in the process of devising a new proposal for the property that it would soon submit to HRM.

In response to United Gulf’s presentation, Regional Council did not discharge the development agreement. On February 12, 2012, United Gulf’s new proposal, called Skye Halifax, was presented to Regional Council for their consideration in initiating amendments to HRM’s planning documents. It is a 48 storey building comprised of two 44 storey towers above a four storey podium, for a total building height of 172 metres, inclusive of roof top mechanical equipment (Attachment A). This will require substantial amendments to HRM’s planning policies and regulations concerning maximum permitted building heights and other built-form requirements (Attachment B) that dictate the overall allowable size of a building. Regional Council agreed to consider the proposal, requesting public input and additional staff advice, which is the subject of this report.

The possible discharge of the existing development agreement will be the subject of a future staff report.

Although, it may not be important in the not run, staff seems to be mixing elevation with allowed HRM_by_Design height (66 meters). The height of the Skye would be 150 - 153 meters depending on which street it is measured from Hollis or Granville. According to this document - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/17446CitadelRampartSurvey.pdf - it is 167 meters minus 17.5 meters above Granville Street (150 meters), and that appears to be to the roof of the mechanical room.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

(The money to restore the streetscapes around the heritage buildings stretching from city hall all the way to the St. Mary's Cathedral has to come from somewhere.)

The city collects tons of money every year from downtown properties. Streets like Spring Garden Road have very high assessments, as do office towers downtown. The lack of investment isn't a problem of lack of funds, it's a problem with poor priorities.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

The city collects tons of money every year from downtown properties. Streets like Spring Garden Road have very high assessments, as do office towers downtown. The lack of investment isn't a problem of lack of funds, it's a problem with poor priorities.

I wasn't attempting to denigrate what is the city's hurdle of priority problems, a lack of planning, vision, and motivation -- but streetscape improvements do cost money, and HRM certainly isn't rich. This is a have-not city of a have-not province, after all.

Streetscape improvements are necessary, and many more of them can be done if we allow further growth of the downtown. At least with increased tax revenvues it'll be easier to get more people on board with what some consider to be frivolous.

This is why I'm hoping Waye votes 'yes' on the TS. Getting this site developed is the best way to fund his heritage concerns.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

This is a have-not city of a have-not province, after all.

By what basis is Halifax a "have-not city"?

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Hali87

By what basis is Halifax a "have-not city"?

I do not believe Halifax yet generates all of the revenues it directs toward its own expenditures.

Nova Scotia Budget Documents

The basis on which Halifax is considered a have-not, though this designation is most often applied at the provincial level, is the City's use of equalisation payments from Ottawa.

Of the nearly $1.3 billion Nova Scotia receives, HRM does get a share of this to off-set the costs of infrastructure investment and maintenance, healthcare, education, etc... Healthcare equalisation is certainly a big one since the specialised health services in Halifax service all Nova Scotians, and in some cases all Maritimers.

Equalisation to education is obvious, since HRM has quite a high number of universities for a city of its size -- although if you were to ask the average student I'd suspect they'd be of the opinion that the government isn't using enough revenues to subsidise university and college tuitions, of which are amongst the highest in the country.

Halifax in general has certainly been doing well in recent years, however, and is expected to perform even better by the end of this decade!

I'm also impressed by how Haligonians tend to not delude themselves in the face of disparity: We realise there is a crime problem; we realise tuition costs are too high; we realise the investment to underground our utilities is absolutely necessary due to Halifax's hurricane-prone location (relatively speaking of course).


***Shifting myself back on top: One thing I appreciated about Skye Halifax's podiums was the landscaping.

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

From our newly elected batch of councilors -- how many of them are likely to vote 'yes' on United Gulf's request for an extension on the Twisted Sisters?

Would anyone care to hazard a guess?

Having been away for so long I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which way the vote will go however I think, no matter the result, it'll be a close one.

[halifaxboyns]

I doubt Waye will be posting much on here anymore. Once you get onto a political body you need to be very careful because of liability - the MGA is quite clear that he has to go into the public hearing 'with an open mind and be able to be swayed'. So it's probably in Waye's best interests not to say much...shame, but that's the way government can be. That said, I don't think we have any reason to believe he won't be sensible when he votes.

I didn't have much of a chance to ask Andy Fillmore the mindset around the heights in HbD, but I would assume it was to create some table top effects. I don't necessarily agree with that method because it depends on the vantage point where you look. But it is what it is...and council approved it.

I think UG has hedged their bets on this one...by applying for Skye but also having the twisted extension on the table. The only question is if the DA for TS is extended, will they need a DA amendment to straighten the building out? If so, would council be willing to do it considering how interesting of a building design it was...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I doubt Waye will be posting much on here anymore. Once you get onto a political body you need to be very careful because of liability - the MGA is quite clear that he has to go into the public hearing 'with an open mind and be able to be swayed'. So it's probably in Waye's best interests not to say much...shame, but that's the way government can be. That said, I don't think we have any reason to believe he won't be sensible when he votes.

Won't be sensible? When has he ever BEEN sensible?!?









OK... just kidding. He is a difficult sort at times but he does think about things, which is refreshing. Sometimes he reaches the wrong conclusions, but hey...

[fenwick16]

Skye Halifax will be presented before HRM Council for first reading on November 20th (this coming Tuesday). Here is the agenda for Tuesday, November 20th - http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/121120-rc-agenda.html

[kph06]

Ummm, not sure her math is correct:

Beverly Miller, Halifax
Beverly Miller indicated that she has a number of concerns including the assertion that the project’s units will be affordable. She stated that a $350 million dollar project with 400 units could not be affordable. She estimated that average unit costs might be in the range of $750 million dollars, without including condo fees and taxes. She concluded by stating that the numbers that have been provided do not make sense and that there is little economic justification for the project.

Source (Page 86)

[Keith P.]

The math skills of the STV and heritage types have never impressed me. I suspect that they use an old abacus.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The math skills of the STV and heritage types have never impressed me. I suspect that they use an old abacus.

Math failure aside, I'm wondering how building less housing is going to make housing more affordable. I doubt STV's habit of causing delays and running up legal bills for developers helps either.

It's a total joke that Bev Miller has flip-flopped from entitled South End NIMBY to affordable housing advocate. I am pretty sure that in the past (South Street, the St. James or whatever that was scaled down by 50%) she complained about South End developments having units that were too small and too affordable.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Jringe01

Having been away for so long I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which way the vote will go however I think, no matter the result, it'll be a close one.

I've heard from someone with friends in UG that there are six councillors who are definitely in the "NO" camp. I don't know which ones, and the rest are unknowns to this 'source'.