Skyline Pics of Halifax

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Thank you for the link. It was amusing to see the variety of reactions from all the people (and especially the friendly, waving crowds) wondering what the hell is in the sky.

YW.

You can spend a lot of time watching their High Definition vids. Ive been sightseeing in Venice and San Fran via their videos without leaving my seat

The California coast videos are very good too.

[someone123]

Repost:

Thought this was a nice aerial photo of Halifax. Too bad it is so small.

It was part of a post about the history of the Commons, the open green space in the foreground. This land was granted to the public by King George III in 1763, so it's the park's 250th anniversary:


Source

A different angle, 1931:


Source

[someone123]

There are a bunch of 2013 aerials here: http://www.visionairimages.com/Geographic-Zone/Halifax-EasternShore/i-DSvMGPH

[RyeJay]

^ This links to 2012 pictures. I'm not able to locate 2013.

[someone123]

The 2013 ones are at the bottom.

You can see the library pretty clearly in this one (and a bunch of cranes if you look closely). Unfortunately, none of them are closeups of the new buildings on Brunswick Street.



You can see how large the Nova Centre excavation site is in this one:

[halifaxboyns]

That historical photo is stunning - it's hard to believe how much has changed. You can see the old shed that used to be a part of the Railway Yard; where my mom worked for Maher's Transfer (which later became Clarke Transport). They moved from the Train station out to Bayers Lake and were part of the reason the Bayers Lake railway was kept alive after Volvo folded up. But eventually they moved away from 'roll on/roll off' and just focused on truck transport.

But what is more stunning about the current pics is how much change still has yet to occur - the actual construction of Nova Centre; the Waterfront Lots; the Hollis/Sackville Lot going through HBD. In the next 10 years - there will be even more change.

The other thing that surprises me is just how many multi-res buildings there are around the Fenwick area. I keep forgetting how many there are; a lot of them are older and could use a good sprucing up (or tear down, consolidate and make bigger). I think the VP rules in that area would cap most to about 5-6 stories, but still - if you tear down and consolidate a couple you could get some nice new stuff in the mix.

[Nouvellecosse]

I definitely prefer the 2nd photo. The first photo is a great angle in that it helps demonstrate the highrise density in the south end and it helps accentuate the bridges and Citadel Hill, but the large parking areas in the foreground are such a distraction to me. I really wish we could have built that Superstore without surface parking. On my numerous visits to the store, it seems like 75% of the visitors arrive by foot or bike anyway. They should have built it to the street facing the park, and stuck a small parking garage behind or over it.

As it is, I still think it could be fixable by renovating it to have the main entrance off Barrington and developing the parking areas between Barrington and the railway. Perhaps there could be a midrise condo building, or even a few charming townhouses.

Off course the bigger parking area is between the tracks and the cruise ship pier, but that could be fixed by simply making a parking garage and developing the rest of the land as a park and public space which would be a much more attractive greeting for the cruise passengers than the current expanse of asphalt.

[ILoveHalifax]

I also think the historical pic is very interesting. The obvious interest being downtown and what was not there, but the background also shows that there was no city off the peninsula.

[RyeJay]

Thank you, someone123, for posting those aerials. The library is definitely noticeable. It looks great!

The Nova Centre site is impressive from this perspective.
The height and density this triple tower development will contribute to the downtown makes me wonder, again, about United Gulf's site for the formerly proposed Twisted Sisters. There still hasn't been news since the company majorly pushed their luck with Skye Halifax...

(I'm still pissy that UG didn't commit to something akin to the Twisted Sisters. They *had* the height, and they *didn't* use it!)

Whatever company eventually builds there, I'm just scared that the site will suddenly fall under the anti-height regulations of HRMbyDesign and be reduced by around 5 or 10-storeys.

[FuzzyWuz]

Is that the RMS Brittanic or the RMS Olympic in that 1931 shot?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm just scared that the site will suddenly fall under the anti-height regulations of HRMbyDesign and be reduced by around 5 or 10-storeys.

The HbD height limit for the United Gulf site is about 20 floors, like the Bank of Canada site. I think something like the Bank of Canada design would look fine, and would bring in enough new residents to make a big difference downtown.

The owner of Southwest Properties has said they plan to build something like 1000-1200 units downtown over the next few years, which means Cunard, Bank of Canada, and a couple of others. I think that's the sort of development the downtown needs in order to live up to its potential in terms of retail, restaurants, bars, pedestrian activity, etc. The big residential developments will drive demand for nicer shops in the heritage buildings along Barrington and other downtown streets, and suburbanites and visitors will follow as the mix of offerings improves.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

The HbD height limit for the United Gulf site is about 20 floors, like the Bank of Canada site. I think more or less twin proposals similar to the Bank of Canada design would look fine, and would bring in enough new residents that they'd make a big difference downtown.

20-storey twins would look fine, I agree. But if these towers were a grandfathered proposal and allowed to build to 27 floors that would be a significant gain in density that the core needs..and this magnitude of density isn't possible anywhere else.

27 storeys is a big deal for Halifax!
I just don't want an opportunity to be thrown away.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

20-storey twins would look fine, I agree. But if these towers were a grandfathered proposal and allowed to build to 27 floors that would be a significant gain in density that the core needs..and this magnitude of density isn't possible anywhere else.

27 storeys is a big deal for Halifax!
I just don't want an opportunity to be thrown away.

I think the only way it'll get to 27 storeys is if UG ends up developing it, and the grandfather clause is still in effect, right?

Getting the full 27 storeys would be nice, but even more lamentable than losing the extra height would be if the designs were downgraded. A Bank of Canada-style development would be okay, certainly--it's a decent design. But I was really impressed architecturally with both Twisted Sisters and Skye. Given that UG's development portfolio is otherwise almost exclusively comprised of tacky junk, that was especially surprising. So to see the architecture kicked down a peg would be too bad, especially in one of the highest-profile locations in town.

But if UG aren't going to propose something that plays by the rules, they should just sell the land to someone who will. I'd argue they're being bad corporate citizens, just letting the site sit there, empty and ugly.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Getting the full 27 storeys would be nice, but even more lamentable than losing the extra height would be if the designs were downgraded.

I think I disagree with you on this point.

I would be completely fine with an extremely basic design, as long as the downtown achieves the additional density that will, in turn, increase the core's cash flow and stimulate more developments. I'm not saying I hope UG proposes 27 floors of vinyl....but, I am saying that I want density badly enough that I'd be tempted to support it.

The Bank of Canada building isn't that pretty. Downtown businesses need the higher residential density.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I think I disagree with you on this point.

I would be completely fine with an extremely basic design, as long as the downtown achieves the additional density that will, in turn, increase the core's cash flow and stimulate more developments. I'm not saying I hope UG proposes 27 floors of vinyl....but, I am saying that I want density badly enough that I'd be tempted to support it.

I would agree with that for some locations, but I think it would be extremely embarrassing to have a crummy structure at this site.

Of course ideally, we won't have to choose between density and quality, but if it did come down to that (hypothetical) choice, design quality would win out for me. I mean, technically, we can build a high-density city without a single high-rise, so if it's about choosing between a high-rise and higher-rise, I'll go with whichever is the most attractive. Again hypothetically, if we're choosing between plain-but-tall buildings and short-but-beautiful buildings, gimme short and beautiful. Fortunately, I doubt it'll be quite so stark as that choice!

[someone123]

I think it sometimes ends up being tall and beautiful or short and plain, because the shorter developments have fewer units and smaller budgets. There's also more money for public amenities when more floors are permitted. It's not guaranteed that more money will be spend on amenities, but the opportunity's there with a 27-storey building. It's not there when developers are building 40-unit lowrise buildings on expensive, heavily-taxed land.

It was really disappointing that we never got the original United Gulf proposal around 2005-2007 or so. There was a lot of lost opportunity during that period, partly I think because a lot of energy went into unproductive fights over development approvals. The downtown area is a few years behind where it could have been by now.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would agree with that for some locations, but I think it would be extremely embarrassing to have a crummy structure at this site.

I was joking about the vinyl.
I wouldn't consider a basic design to be embarrassing. It's not as though we're aiming for another Fenwick Tower mess.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I mean, technically, we can build a high-density city without a single high-rise.

In the context of the downtown, 4 to 9-storey buildings aren't going to cut it; and yet with all the view planes and 'sensitive' heritage locations, developments aren't even permitted to reach for the already conservative height limits of the — Citadel ramparts (which I support as a compromise).

High density without highrises, in the broad terms of an entire city, would mean very efficient land usage. And I don't think HRM is quite ready to get that organised and rid itself of most surface parking lots.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

i think it sometimes ends up being tall and beautiful or short and plain, because the shorter developments have fewer units and smaller budgets. There's also more money for public amenities when more floors are permitted. It's not guaranteed that more money will be spend on amenities, but the opportunity's there with a 27-storey building. It's not there when developers are building 40-unit lowrise buildings on expensive, heavily-taxed land.

+1

[Drybrain]

Yeah, I agree in general. I was just talking hypothetically.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

20-storey twins would look fine, I agree. But if these towers were a grandfathered proposal and allowed to build to 27 floors that would be a significant gain in density that the core needs..and this magnitude of density isn't possible anywhere else.

27 storeys is a big deal for Halifax!
I just don't want an opportunity to be thrown away.

There is nothing to keep someone (although I hope it's not UG since they couldn't figure out how to get out of a paper bag) from coming and asking the city to amend the post bonus height map to get 27 floors. Given the fact that twisted sisters had been approved; it seems to me that amending the map limit would be okay - so long as everything else stayed the same (all the other rules).