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

[Hali87]

I'm getting the impression that some people at UG just aren't great at their jobs. They botched the Motherhouse redevelopment, there have been ongoing problems with the Waterton and now the TS/Skye absurdities.

A recurring theme in the comments in the media (and also at Centre Plan meetings) is that many people (strongly) believe that high residential density leads to high land prices (look at Manhattan! look at Vancouver!)

I always assumed that the cause and effect were the opposite there - cities start to increase density when more people want to live in a given area, but can't because there are no available units that they can afford. Does anyone have an economics (or related) background? I'd be interested in learning more about this. I would guess that there's some kind of function where as residential density goes up, commercial viability also goes up, leading to better retail, more convenience, a more desirable location, and thus higher land values, which can then be mitigated by the addition of more units. I would also guess that Manhattan and Vancouver became unaffordable not simply because this happened, but because of the rate at which this happened, and the fact that neither city nor developers were making a conscious effort to keep units affordable. I certainly buy the argument that newer units are generally priced higher, but I have trouble understanding why increasing the number of available units

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'm getting the impression that some people at UG just aren't great at their jobs. They botched the Motherhouse redevelopment, there have been ongoing problems with the Waterton and now the TS/Skye absurdities.

A recurring theme in the comments in the media (and also at Centre Plan meetings) is that many people (strongly) believe that high residential density leads to high land prices (look at Manhattan! look at Vancouver!)

I always assumed that the cause and effect were the opposite there - cities start to increase density when more people want to live in a given area, but can't because there are no available units that they can afford. Does anyone have an economics (or related) background? I'd be interested in learning more about this. I would guess that there's some kind of function where as residential density goes up, commercial viability also goes up, leading to better retail, more convenience, a more desirable location, and thus higher land values, which can then be mitigated by the addition of more units. I would also guess that Manhattan and Vancouver became unaffordable not simply because this happened, but because of the rate at which this happened, and the fact that neither city nor developers were making a conscious effort to keep units affordable. I certainly buy the argument that newer units are generally priced higher, but I have trouble understanding why increasing the number of available units

I am also puzzled by United Gulf's strategy. It is possible that because developers are starting to see more support for progress that Navid Saberi just felt that he could get the necessary support to proceed. I can't blame him for having big dreams; I would like to see more of it in the Halifax area and I think that it is gradually happening.

I don't have an economics degree but I am sure that you are right regarding high density and prices - that it isn't high density that leads to high prices. Based on a housing bubble that occurred in Toronto in the late 1980's, there was high demand for residential units (detached and multi-unit) and low inventory (i.e. low vacancy rates). Prices skyrocketed before correcting in the early 1990's. On the other hand, we have all seen what recently occurred in the US when the housing bubble burst and there was too much inventory and little demand (prices plummeted).

So I am sure that prices are based on supply and demand, as is usually the case, and not high density as you pointed out.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

(look at Manhattan! look at Vancouver!)

Even these examples aren't as good as people believe they are. The parts of Manhattan and Vancouver with the highest housing prices are not the highest density areas. The West End, which might be the highest density part of Vancouver, is actually pretty affordable since it has a lot of older housing stock. Most of Vancouver is more expensive and most of it isn't very dense (4,500 per square kilometre or so, about 1/10 of parts of Manhattan and probably not too far off from the Halifax peninsula). I think the most desirable parts of Manhattan are townhouses in areas like Greenwich Village or whatever still exists in areas like the Upper East Side. In both cities, increases in housing prices followed regulation of new construction (which reduces supply, creating exactly the outcome economists would predict). The story's similar in San Francisco, where a huge part of the city is difficult to build in and still consists of 2-3 storey wooden buildings. If San Francisco were to declare a free-for-all on new construction, many of those buildings would be torn down and replaced with highrises and the average price of a housing unit would fall.

I do think there's a subtle interplay between good development and increasing land values, but in those cases the cost of a housing unit in a multi-unit development doesn't necessarily increase. I would also argue that the increases in land values reflect an increase in real value and the desirability of a neighbourhood, which is a good thing. Artificially restricting new construction may help certain individuals but I doubt that it creates a net benefit for society as a whole.

"Build it and they will come" is also a bit subtle. In economics there are usually feedback loops. Building might increase demand simply by putting more money in locals' pockets, but some money has to enter the economy somewhere. In bubble economies, this money usually comes from credit or outside investors who can easily pull out if they think they're not going to get good returns.

[halifaxboyns]

Fate of Skye site up in air - Developer plans third design

First came the Twisted Sisters and then Skye Halifax. What’s next?

Days after regional council rejected Skye Halifax, a controversial $350-million proposal for twin 44-storey towers on a four-storey podium at the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets, there are scant details about the future of the former Tex-Park site.

United Gulf Developments Ltd., which bought the property at 1591 Granville St. from the municipality in 2004, maintains that it will come back with a third design.

“I don’t sell. I have lots of properties and I sell a finished product, that’s what I sell,” United Gulf president Navid Saberi said in an interview when asked if he would consider selling the property.

Whether the scale of a new proposal will be reduced, or possibly configured in a different way to conform to the HRM By Design planning strategy, Saberi isn’t saying.

“I have to sit down with my architect and look at the options that we have and figure out which one will be the best one,” he said.

At a maximum height of 172 metres, Skye Halifax would have greatly exceeded the 66-metre height limit for the site and violated a municipal stipulation that buildings are not to be seen from within the Citadel’s parade square.

United Gulf had requested five site-specific exceptions for Skye Halifax based on a loophole in HRM by Design, which council adopted in 2009. The planning strategy allows for exceptions if it can be demonstrated that a development would bring social, economic and cultural benefits.

But on Tuesday, regional council voted 9-6 in favour of killing the proposal, with Mayor Mike Savage stating that any benefits the buildings would provide would be overshadowed by uncertainty among developers looking to build in downtown Halifax if the HRM by Design variations were granted.

Here is the rest of the story.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Fate of Skye site up in air - Developer plans third design

First came the Twisted Sisters and then Skye Halifax. What’s next?
.
.
.
Here is the rest of the story.

An interesting detail was in the story that I wasn't aware of:

A buyback agreement with Halifax Regional Municipality for the site, dated March 17, 2005, stipulates that the developer must begin work no later than 24 months after a development agreement has been approved, and the project must be completed within 60 months of approval.

If those conditions are not met, the municipality “at its sole discretion” may buy back the property for 95 per cent of the original purchase price, which was $5.36million.

However, since the HRM didn't enforce this clause within the first 24 months I wonder if they would do so. Perhaps the HRM decided to ignore back in 2009 (2 years after the appeal) because of the bad economical conditions at the time.

[Townie709]

Hello! I haven't been following this discussion very closely, but i was just wondering, from your guys perspective, does it look like this will ever be built?? I think it would be a really, really great project for Halifax. But, like in St. John's, there are those who will oppose anything with height with all of their mind heart and soul. In my opinion, both Halifax and St. John's need to grow up a bit and rid themselves of their fear of heights. Halifax and St. John's have huge potential to create a vibrant, dense downtown. (Halifax more so than us) we just need to take advantage of it!

So, in your guys opinions, will this go ahead? I know there are sooo many factors, but a short summary would be great! Thanks

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Townie709

Hello! I haven't been following this discussion very closely, but i was just wondering, from your guys perspective, does it look like this will ever be built?? I think it would be a really, really great project for Halifax. But, like in St. John's, there are those who will oppose anything with height with all of their mind heart and soul. In my opinion, both Halifax and St. John's need to grow up a bit and rid themselves of their fear of heights. Halifax and St. John's have huge potential to create a vibrant, dense downtown. (Halifax more so than us) we just need to take advantage of it!

So, in your guys opinions, will this go ahead? I know there are sooo many factors, but a short summary would be great! Thanks

No, it won't go ahead as a 48 storey high project. HRM Council voted to reject even a public hearing and there is no appeal allowed by the developer.

It would have been easy for United Gulf to argue a case for a twin tower design that reached ramparts maximum but in all other aspects met HRM_by_Design (slender, twin towers would have been allowed under HRM_by_Design because of the size of the lot). The reason that I think this is because even the original Twisted Sisters proposal significantly violated the HRM_by_Design bylaws as far as width and setbacks was concerned but they were granted ramparts maximum height. However, this whole Skye proposal delay might very well result in a strict enforcement of HRM_by_Design bylaws with a maximum height limit of 66 meters (20 - 21 floors). So the Skye proposal might end up costing United Gulf a loss of building space instead of an increase.

[Empire]

The potential now exists for a squat bulky building 66m high. Add a few setbacks, some landscaping etc. and HRMxD and STV will be happy.

The result could be more view blocked and a very bulky looking building. With most criteria met in the golden HRMxD document we could end up with the worst of three designs.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Empire

The potential now exists for a squat bulky building 66m high. Add a few setbacks, some landscaping etc. and HRMxD and STV will be happy.

The result could be more view blocked and a very bulky looking building. With most criteria met in the golden HRMxD document we could end up with the worst of three designs.

Be positive!

United Gulf may try for a 90m high, squat, bulky building.

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by Duff

The 6 that voted in favor Skye were ..., McCluskey, ...

This angers me way more than it surprises me. After the way she flouted the democratic process in killing that proposal for Prince Albert Road to turn around and vote for Skye...what a b***h!!!

Seriously, they need to vote that old hag "off the island".

Honey...voting for Skye is NOT going to make up for your egregious error in killing that wonderful proposal for PA Road. At best it makes you look incompetent, at worst, a hypocrite.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Jringe01

This angers me way more than it surprises me. After the way she flouted the democratic process in killing that proposal for Prince Albert Road to turn around and vote for Skye...what a b***h!!!

Seriously, they need to vote that old hag "off the island".

Honey...voting for Skye is NOT going to make up for your egregious error in killing that wonderful proposal for PA Road. At best it makes you look incompetent, at worst, a hypocrite.

Its NIMBY behavior. And also, maybe it was like a "why not vote for Skye" thing, it would obviously not pass.

They should have just built TS when they had the chance. This whole situation with UG is getting frustrating for everybody, pro or anti development. Propose a 20-25 story proposal and built it. I have no confidence we'll see this one built, but I'd really like to see the BoC tower go up and The Alexander as well.

There is the Roy Building and the Discovery Centre developments as well. I think it will be amazing if we get 50 percent of all of these built.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Jringe01

This angers me way more than it surprises me. After the way she flouted the democratic process in killing that proposal for Prince Albert Road to turn around and vote for Skye...what a b***h!!!

Seriously, they need to vote that old hag "off the island".

Honey...voting for Skye is NOT going to make up for your egregious error in killing that wonderful proposal for PA Road. At best it makes you look incompetent, at worst, a hypocrite.

I'm no McLuskey fan, but to be fair, I believe the motion that Council voted on was whether or not to allow the Skye proposal to move onto public hearings. That would be consistent with a position of letting the public have its say. I sincerely doubt she would have ultimately sided with this proposal.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I'm no McLuskey fan, but to be fair, I believe the motion that Council voted on was whether or not to allow the Skye proposal to move onto public hearings. That would be consistent with a position of letting the public have its say. I sincerely doubt she would have ultimately sided with this proposal.

Thank you for this comment. I am also not a McLuskey fan; although, it's refreshing for you to express this balanced perspective, instead of just trying to find half a reason to get upset.

[Nashe]

Have you seen the newest render that came out on the weekend?



It will require significant foundation modifications (deeper pilings given the softer soil type) but I think it looks great!

[JET]

Originally Posted by Jringe01

This angers me way more than it surprises me. After the way she flouted the democratic process in killing that proposal for Prince Albert Road to turn around and vote for Skye...what a b***h!!!

Seriously, they need to vote that old hag "off the island".

Honey...voting for Skye is NOT going to make up for your egregious error in killing that wonderful proposal for PA Road. At best it makes you look incompetent, at worst, a hypocrite.

I had a couple of posts deleted for being flippant, and yet this makes the grade? Incredible.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Have you seen the newest render that came out on the weekend?



It will require significant foundation modifications (deeper pilings given the softer soil type) but I think it looks great!

Hey now!! This isn't a stripmall. Moncton will never allow it.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Hey now!! This isn't a stripmall. Moncton will never allow it.

It's a SIDEWAYS stripmall!

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

It's a SIDEWAYS stripmall!

Although I wouldn't mind at all if Moncton were to reach such great heights with its residential developments...I think focusing on in-fill, and replacing the horrid amount of surface parking lots in the downtown with density instead of allowing the majority of development to go to Moncton's expanding business parks and residential subdivisions, is more rational....

[gm_scott]

^ haha, we thought we had problems downtown, at least half of our land isn't surface parking

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by gm_scott

^ haha, we thought we had problems downtown, at least half of our land isn't surface parking

Edmonton and Calgary are just as bad...but they present really great opportunities too.