General Updates and News

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by SekishikiMeikaiHa

Marriott Renovations, Front Entrance:

What a great shot. The interior finishes are outstanding.

[Nifta]

Which Marriott is that?

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by Nifta

Which Marriott is that?

The one by the casino on the waterfront. Lower Water St.

[coolmillion]

I went to the Carmichael Lecture last night to see Gil Penalosa. He didn't say much that was original but he was very energetic and entertaining and I thought he conveyed some important points very effectively.

The talk touched on many topics - transit, biking, public spaces, walking, density - but the main takeaway point is that we should build cities for people first and foremost. A city that both an 8 year old and an 80 year old feel comfortable and happy in is good for everyone. He tied this to economic competitiveness as well, suggesting that money goes to places with high quality of life. He didn't say too much about Halifax but what he did say was spot on: it's harder to change when things are pretty good. Halifax is doing ok; it's not great but it's not bad. It would be much easier to feel an urgent need for change if things were worse.

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories). He is expert on density (planning more generally) and he doesn't think that highrises are the way to go because they have negative impacts on the public realm. I know this is an unpopular perspective on this forum but I'd just like to say he made a pretty convincing argument. It's not about heritage or views; it's about what good for people on the street. In Halifax he would probably encourage the redevelopment of transit corridors, and especially more transit oriented development, but not more highrise buildings. "Vancouverism" would disagree, however. This is the one question I wanted to ask but I had to leave before the Q and A.

Anyway, it was great to see a packed room listen to a great speaker say inspiring things about how to make cities great for people.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories).

At least this notion is unlikely to scare Halifax's anti-height crowd. If more of HRM can develop density via low-rise buildings, eventually we will see more mid and high-rise towers.

[Nilan8888]

I think variety is really the way to go myself.

A couple more high-rises in Halifax is not really going to break anything, but concentrating largely on mid-rise and street-level life? Sure thing. I think the key is to diversify what you've got.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I went to the Carmichael Lecture last night to see Gil Penalosa. He didn't say much that was original but he was very energetic and entertaining and I thought he conveyed some important points very effectively.

...

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories). He is expert on density (planning more generally) and he doesn't think that highrises are the way to go because they have negative impacts on the public realm. I know this is an unpopular perspective on this forum but I'd just like to say he made a pretty convincing argument. It's not about heritage or views; it's about what good for people on the street. In Halifax he would probably encourage the redevelopment of transit corridors, and especially more transit oriented development, but not more highrise buildings. "Vancouverism" would disagree, however. This is the one question I wanted to ask but I had to leave before the Q and A.

Anyway, it was great to see a packed room listen to a great speaker say inspiring things about how to make cities great for people.

I'm completely in agreement with this. A few towers will be nice as punctuation for the skyline, but honestly, skyscrapers don't excite me ythat much—filling out the city's many empty patches and making it more cohesively urban throughout the built-up area (especially the peninsula) does. At 415,000 people in the entire region, it's economics—we might envy the muscular skyline of bigger cities, but we don't have enough people to fill up loads of towers. There just isn't the demand. I would say that in Halifax, four to eight storey buildings ARE our Vancouverism.

Besides, in both vancouver and Toronto there's been a lot of talk lately about too many mega-towers in the core and around transit nodes sucking all the development away from other parts of the city. It doesn't really do anything for the urbanity of the city overall—just overburdens infrastructure in one place while leaving others largely unchanged.

I've said it before on this forum, but if we could fill in all the parking lots and strip malls and car dealerships from South Street to Young Street with well-built, attractive four-to-eight-storey buildings (with a few taller ones here and there) good lord, what a different and better and more urban city we'd have.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

honestly, skyscrapers don't excite me that much

Said nobody ever on a Skyscraper forum.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Said nobody ever on a Skyscraper forum.

Hey, what can I say? I mean, they excite me inasmuch as they work to build great cities. But excellent planning and city building is a lot more exciting. Skyscrapers can be part of that. But not always.

[Jstaleness]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't come here to get excited about 4-8 storey buildings. I get excited when someone proposes the idea that Halifax might get a tower that is iconic or different from anything we already have. We have enough low rises. I am not totally against them but I don't want to live in city that may reach a million people someday and have nothing over 21 storeys.

[beyeas]

It all depends on where we are talking about.

In the downtown we should be building towers. We have a downtown that is physically restricted by geography, and we need to be using the available land wisely through high density. I agree with whoever said that height variation is also key, but one could argue that we already have lots of short buildings in the downtown, and it is the height that we are "short" on (pardon the pun).

I don't however have a big issue with a focus on medium density (10 story and under) buildings in other areas, in particular if they went along with corresponding transit corridors. Think how much more vibrant Quinpool, Arigicola and Robie (north of North) would be if they had continuous 5-10 story housing that interfaced with the sidewalk through street level commercial usage, and had streetcars regularly connecting them with the core. Combined with the lower density adjacent structures they would be phenomenal neighbourhoods.

I am certainly on this forum 'cause I love to see iconic structures get built, and since we have so few places in this city to build them we need to not cover those locations with stubbiness. At the same time, I would rather have a line of 8 story buildings going up Agricola with a streetcar whose cost was offset by the development fees and property taxes, than one single skyscraper on that street. It is all about the location for me.

[alps]

I wouldn't call myself a skyscraper enthusiast either, and my favourite areas of Hong Kong aren't the glitzy business districts with all the bank towers, but the grubbier, gritter everyday areas of "lowrise" (by HK standards) buildings of nine stories or so. Dense, walkable areas are most exciting to me.

But: normally when people come to Halifax and make this argument that low-midrise buildings are the best way to add density, they usually bring up places like Paris or Berlin. One problem there is that the dwellings in Paris are tiny units that wouldn't be marketable here so I never thought those were very relevant examples. While midrise infill is great and much needed, I think it's still best density-wise to make room for well-designed tall buildings.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by alps

But: normally when people come to Halifax and make this argument that low-midrise buildings are the best way to add density, they usually bring up places like Paris or Berlin. One problem there is that the dwellings in Paris are tiny units that wouldn't be marketable here so I never thought those were very relevant examples. While midrise infill is great and much needed, I think it's still best density-wise to make room for well-designed tall buildings.

I don't think our mid-rise developments are being modelled after Paris' little garret apartments, though. Besides, a lot of high-rise developments in Canada are just packing 300-500 sq. ft bachelor-sized rabbit warrens into 50-storey buildings.

Check out the proposed North End mid-rises on this map. Probably nicely-sized units in there. Picture all the North End's surface parking, one-storey aluminum warehouses, and weedy lots filled up with stuff like those.

It's a matter of economics—Halifax adds about 2,000 new households a year, only some of which go to the peninsula/Dartmouth. A 40-storey building might have 300-350 units right there. Going high-rise in Halifax means substantially fewer construction sites and more of those gaping holes left in our urban fabric. When those holes are filled in, and building sites become scarcer, I'll be the first to say "Build up!" rather than demolishing our older building stock. But there's so much infill opportunity right now (IMO). Plus, it's easier to sell neighbourhoods on mid-rise than high-rise, and the accrual of density, ultimately, is just as good, only spread over a few blocks than on one lot.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

...Besides, a lot of high-rise developments in Canada are just packing 300-500 sq. ft bachelor-sized rabbit warrens into 50-storey buildings.

Oooh... just think how one of those developments would drive council crazy given their aversion to dealing with small animals such as cats & chickens. Rabbits & highrises!

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Hey, what can I say? I mean, they excite me inasmuch as they work to build great cities. But excellent planning and city building is a lot more exciting. Skyscrapers can be part of that. But not always.

I agree 100%. I think the end goal should be to build the best/most livable city possible, not to have the tallest buildings in region x. To me highrises are the means, not the end, and they are not the only means. Doesn't mean don't build them, but to me building skyscrapers just for their own sake is kind of silly and potentially counterproductive, as is being realized in Toronto currently.

I tend to think of this as an architecture and urban design forum. I hope that's ok.

[someone123]

I think abstract discussions of height are pretty much useless.

In downtown Halifax, maybe 2/3 or more of the land is either under viewplanes, is public open space, or has a heritage building on it. Farther out in areas like the West End people want to maintain the character of their neighbourhoods. The densities in these parts of the city are often so low and the amount of developable land is so small that 4 story buildings won't result in the type of vibrancy being discusses here. Even 8 storey buildings might not cut it.

The idea of 4-8 being "natural" for Halifax isn't necessarily true either. The city has something like 100 highrise buildings of 12 floors or more, and developers seem to commonly propose buildings in the 12-20 range. Fenwick will soon be 36.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think abstract discussions of height are pretty much useless.

In downtown Halifax, maybe 2/3 or more of the land is either under viewplanes, is public open space, or has a heritage building on it. Farther out in areas like the West End people want to maintain the character of their neighbourhoods. The densities in these parts of the city are often so low and the amount of developable land is so small that 4 story buildings won't result in the type of vibrancy being discusses here. Even 8 storey buildings might not cut it.

The idea of 4-8 being "natural" for Halifax isn't necessarily true either. The city has something like 100 highrise buildings of 12 floors or more, and developers seem to commonly propose buildings in the 12-20 range. Fenwick will soon be 36.

Exactly, 4-8 being natural is a myth. Halifax's street level businesses could do with a few apartment buildings downtown at 30-40 stories.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Exactly, 4-8 being natural is a myth. Halifax's street level businesses could do with a few apartment buildings downtown at 30-40 stories.

I'm not saying 4-8 is natural, or that highrises are bad. And certainly downtown, building to the viewplane maximum is desirable. There's totally a place for high-rises, I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be the default densification tool in a city this small, at this point. I'm much more excited by the opportunity presented by mid-rise to have a better effect at building out the city's patchwork urban fabric.

High-rises can be very good, and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm against them. It's just at this point (outside of the downtown core, as Someone123 very rightly points out, where the buildable space is at a premium and should be maximized) the urbanizing potential of mid-rise seems greater to me.

[someone123]

Part of what I find weird about this debate is that the city in practice already gets a pretty decent mix of building heights. Most new North End projects are midrise, for example. Same thing goes for many downtown projects like the Sister Sites. Meanwhile, Skye was voted down.

[Duff]

Speaking of midrise in the north end. Another project is planned for Isleville Street! This time, its the other corner of Bilby & 2859-2863 Isleville. This is the 3rd proposal for this street in the last 12 months, and 5th for the area between Russell & Bloomfield.

I received this in the mail because I live right around the corner. Nothing yet on height or renderings but hopefully they will show something next Thursday at the meeting.