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

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't know what they'll do now but like I said it would be reasonable to extend the original DA but let them update the building design. A design under HbD would also be fine.

If council were to reach out to United Gulf and ask them to try again, under TS heights, this may help alleviate the hate currently being expressed from many in Halifax who are craving tall skyscrapers.

It would at least shine a light of progressiveness and compromise upon council.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This topic would be excellent fodder for memes.

Towers get approved... applies for even taller towers.

[MeEtc]

Council rejects bid by Skye Halifax to exceed height limit

In Chronicle-Herald, November 20, 2012 - 2:42pm BY LAURA FRASER CITY HALL REPORTER

The Halifax skyline will not include the 48-storey twin towers proposed by United Gulf Developments Ltd.

Regional council rejected the firm's request for an exemption to HRM by Design's height restrictions, which the Skye Halifax development would exceed by 106 metres.

Instead, the 9-6 vote upheld the recommendation from city's the design and review committee. A committee report found the developer had not successfully proven Skye Halifax qualifies for the loophole built into the municipal planning guidelines.

[Keith P.]

It appears the new Council is already on track to rival the old Council for their record of ineptitude. To reject this proposal and to deem the site must fall under HRMbD rules of no more than 20 storeys - even though they already approved a DA for height well in excess of that - will simply drive developers to other markets. Clearly a developer who was willing to spend $350 million in Halifax is not welcomed. I hope UG goes to Moncton and builds something iconic there.

This became an ego exercise, with Andy Fillmore lobbying hard in social media for his baby, claiming it was the reason downtown is "booming", and with the likes of Waye Mason leading the charge to defend a deeply flawed planning document by spurning someone willing to invest heavily in our bombed-out downtown in order to protect Andy Fillmore's opus. Once again HRM Council proves it has its collective head firmly up its 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[Jstaleness]

Well Balls! By that I mean I am sad that we won't be seeing the large gold ones hanging from the lobby ceiling.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It appears the new Council is already on track to rival the old Council for their record of ineptitude. To reject this proposal and to deem the site must fall under HRMbD rules of no more than 20 storeys - even though they already approved a DA for height well in excess of that - will simply drive developers to other markets. Clearly a developer who was willing to spend $350 million in Halifax is not welcomed. I hope UG goes to Moncton and builds something iconic there.

This became an ego exercise, with Andy Fillmore lobbying hard in social media for his baby, claiming it was the reason downtown is "booming", and with the likes of Waye Mason leading the charge to defend a deeply flawed planning document by spurning someone willing to invest heavily in our bombed-out downtown in order to protect Andy Fillmore's opus. Once again HRM Council proves it has its collective head firmly up its 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

I think council would have looked more inept if they had decided to amend HRMBD with no truly compelling reason, and especially because of the timing. If this had been the old council, the perception would have been that "HRMBD is not a legally binding planning document that allows exceptions in exceptional circumstances, but a set of loose guidelines that can easily be changed whenever someone wants to change them". But since it's a new council, you can add to that: "the new council wants to throw out everything the old council did and do their own thing; huge waste of time and resources". I see nothing inherently wrong with buildings that are taller than what Halifax has, and I am a big supporter of increasing density in the inner city. But from what I can tell, HRMBD IS working, and Andy Fillmore isn't wrong to say that. Clearly a developer who was willing to spend $350 million in Halifax is not welcomed? Nova Centre, just sayin. There are already hundreds (thousands?) of new residential units in the pipeline or under construction downtown, and if there was really market demand for Skye, then it just means that more empty lots will see proposals sooner. Which in turn leads to conditions where re-evaluating the height limits makes sense.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I think council would have looked more inept if they had decided to amend HRMBD with no truly compelling reason, and especially because of the timing. If this had been the old council, the perception would have been that "HRMBD is not a legally binding planning document that allows exceptions in exceptional circumstances, but a set of loose guidelines that can easily be changed whenever someone wants to change them". But since it's a new council, you can add to that: "the new council wants to throw out everything the old council did and do their own thing; huge waste of time and resources". From what I can tell, HRMBD IS working, and Andy Fillmore isn't wrong to say that. Clearly a developer who was willing to spend $350 million in Halifax is not welcomed? Nova Centre, just sayin.

I think that HRM_by_Design has certainly sped up the development process. However, the Nova Centre is only allowed under HRM_by_Design as long as it contains a publicly sponsored convention centre (section 7.15(a) - https://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf). If the convention centre hadn't received funding then the maximum height limit under HRM_by_Design would have been 28 meters. Here is a direct link to the post-bonus height limits - https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6ZVp3fn2BzzWmZ5cl9zZjlIVFE (from the posted HRM_by_Design Design Manual).

Amendments to HRM_by_Design can be voted on. An example is the YMCA/CBC proposal; it needed an amendment to the HRM_by_Design by-laws in order to proceed. HRM Council voted in favour of the amendments. The problem with the Skye proposal is that it is just so far outside the boundaries of what has been allowed in the past. It breaks almost every rule of HRM_by_Design. For that reason, I think that United Gulf should have just tried for the ramparts maximum height limit with a proposal that otherwise meets the Design Manual.

[someone123]

In ANS tonight Navid Saberi stated that United Gulf does not intend to sell the land and that they are going to "look at [their] options". He pointed out, as he has for a long time now, that the purpose of the taller proposal was to allow for smaller units than what would be possibly under HbD.

I hope they come back soon with a shorter proposal. If something is built on this site to go along with the BoC proposal and Nova Centre the positive impact on the area would be huge.

[Empire]

Maybe this thread should be renamed...... "Skyefall"

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

In ANS tonight Navid Saberi stated that United Gulf does not intend to sell the land and that they are going to "look at [their] options". He pointed out, as he has for a long time now, that the purpose of the taller proposal was to allow for smaller units than what would be possibly under HbD.

I hope they come back soon with a shorter proposal. If something is built on this site to go along with the BoC proposal and Nova Centre the positive impact on the area would be huge.

I hope they come back immediately.

I don't want them gazing at their few options forever. I refuse to believe that United Gulf was stupid enough to ever think the rejection of Skye Halifax was impossible.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I hope they come back immediately.

I don't want them gazing at their few options forever. I refuse to believe that United Gulf was stupid enough to ever think the rejection of Skye Halifax was impossible.

I don't even believe they have the money to build it.

The Waterton was a disaster. Let's get a real developer on this site.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Empire

Maybe this thread should be renamed...... "Skyefall"

James Bond would have nothing to do with this disaster!!

[Haliobserver]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I don't even believe they have the money to build it.

The Waterton was a disaster. Let's get a real developer on this site.

I can't understand for the life of me the strategy behind this? I know a lot of people talked earlier in the Twisted Sisters about Saberi looking to jack up the value of the land by having a big building approval for it, but I don't know if DA's are transferrable? Bottom line is that these guys went all in on this. They even made tenants in the building currently on site to vacate. Now they have an empty building with (assumingly) a large mortgage on it and no tenants. I can't imagine how much money was spent on this process for it to go nowhere when it was so apparent it would "go nowhere". With all the other troubles these guys are having with their other companies (Waterton, Greater Homes) I just don't understand the decision to do this.

[someone123]

If they relocated tenants to another building they own then it might actually save them money, assuming they demolish the old office building on Hollis and their property assessment goes down as a result.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Haliobserver

I can't understand for the life of me the strategy behind this? I know a lot of people talked earlier in the Twisted Sisters about Saberi looking to jack up the value of the land by having a big building approval for it, but I don't know if DA's are transferrable? Bottom line is that these guys went all in on this. They even made tenants in the building currently on site to vacate. Now they have an empty building with (assumingly) a large mortgage on it and no tenants. I can't imagine how much money was spent on this process for it to go nowhere when it was so apparent it would "go nowhere". With all the other troubles these guys are having with their other companies (Waterton, Greater Homes) I just don't understand the decision to do this.

DAs are not transferable, but amendments to bylaws are in their nature more permanent. So the height would be enshrined in the bylaw and would transfer to a new owner if the property was sold.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

DAs are not transferable, but amendments to bylaws are in their nature more permanent. So the height would be enshrined in the bylaw and would transfer to a new owner if the property was sold.

Actually that's not correct. A DA is a contract between the existing developer for the parcel - but there are clauses in the DA that bind it to the land and not the owner. I tried to find a good example, but because of the late hour this was the best example I could find.

A DA is a pretty standard document when it comes to the legal language around ownership and 'handing down' the DA to other parties on the land. The planners add and remove the bulk, but if memory serves this stuff is already in there before they add all the land use, plans, etc.

Basically, most DA's contain this section:
7.2 Subsequent Owners
7.2.1 This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns.
rnortgagees, lessees and all subsequent owners, and shall run with the Lands which are
the subject of this Agreement until this Agreement is discharged by Council.
7.2.2 Upon the transfer of title to any lot(s), the subsequent owner(s) thereof shall observe and
perform the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the extent applicable to the lot(s).

So unless a DA has been discharged by council; it stays on the land forever and any new owners are subject to it. So if the owner goes back and gets the DA life extended (which council could do), he could then sell the lot with this DA approval on it. The only 'catch' is that the DA has a set of plans which are part of the DA and that is what must be built. So unlike a rezoning, where you would get an imaginary box for height and setbacks and then you design any building you want to fit it (which is what Waye was talking about), a DA is very specific and you must build the building included in the DA.

Which would mean that any buyer of the land (who didn't like the TS proposal) would then have to discharge the current agreement, seek an amendment to the existing agreement (which I think is possible??), obtain a new one or fit the HbD requirements. Yes, it's that complicated.

[Haliobserver]

So all of this was just a complete waste of money then for Saberi and crew? I imagine this was not cheap. Archtiectrual renderings, legal services, salaries, etc. I just don't get it?

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I hope UG goes to Moncton and builds something iconic there.

So do we! I won't hold my breath, though.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Haliobserver

So all of this was just a complete waste of money then for Saberi and crew? I imagine this was not cheap. Archtiectrual renderings, legal services, salaries, etc. I just don't get it?

They're probably close to bankruptcy I'd imagine, don't they have a lawsuit against them for the Waterton from stealing condo fees or something? Their reputation is pretty bad so I doubt many would invest in their new projects.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

So do we! I won't hold my breath, though.

Don't feed him, please.