General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good points.

I haven't read through all the posts in great detail, so this may have been mentioned already, but what about the financial considerations of tall vs wide?

I'm 100 percent NOT an expert, but I guess there are multiple considerations:

Land costs are greater with a wide building.

But in a tall and/or slender building, the higher and narrower you go, the more space that elevator shafts eat into leasable space. The higher the floor, the lower the profit per square foot.

This is actually known as the "elevator conundrum" in supertall construction, and if nothing else, presents a point at which additional height stops being profitable. (This is usually very high, but I believe the Burj Khalifa and a number of Asian supertalls surpassed it.)

There are ways around (express elevators leading to high-floor elevator lobbies, etc) but no way to eliminate it entirely.

In any case, it's probably not going to be an issue in Halifax any time soon.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm 100 percent NOT an expert, but I guess there are multiple considerations:

Land costs are greater with a wide building.

But in a tall and/or slender building, the higher and narrower you go, the more space that elevator shafts eat into leasable space. The higher the floor, the lower the profit per square foot.

This is actually known as the "elevator conundrum" in supertall construction, and if nothing else, presents a point at which additional height stops being profitable. (This is usually very high, but I believe the Burj Khalifa and a number of Asian supertalls surpassed it.)

There are ways around (express elevators leading to high-floor elevator lobbies, etc) but no way to eliminate it entirely.

In any case, it's probably not going to be an issue in Halifax any time soon.

There are a few factors that I learned about this year that I hadn't really considered before. For "slab" type highrises (and even lowrises presumably) any given unit must be within x metres of a fire exit. So generally developers will adjust the width of the building to have the maximum number of units per floor per fire exit, and the fire exits will be spaced the maximum distance apart. With a point tower, there aren't as many units per floor, and the emphasis tends to be on views. The elevator shafts take up a proportionately larger area with a point tower.

[q12]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Ooohhhhh, highrise! :-D

We do have a ton of NIMBYism here. It is depressing. I agree with people on that. I loathe the Antidevelopment Trust as much as anyone.

And it is sort of irksome to be lumped in with the anti-development NIMBY crowd just for pointing out that we should be comparing ourselves to other small cities rather than to the much bigger ones we somehow think we should be in the same league with.

The argument we should compare ourselves to small cities is used over and over by the NIMBY'S and Citizens Against Virtually Everything (CAVEMEN).

As a lot of forumers have pointed out, we are ahead of many cities of similar size and our regional importance factors into that. London is a blip in Ontario whereas Halifax is the largest metropolitan centre in this region of Canada. We are a media centre, air transportation centre etc.

Dismissing 120,000 people in Halifax is laughable. It's like you think there is this large population living in shacks out in the woods:



When it's probably more like this:

[Ziobrop]

there are all sorts of considerations - even methods of construction - if you can use 2way spanning slabs, you can gain an extra floor in the same overall height vs beam and slab construction.

for example, if you want 10 foot ceilings, and need to accommodate a 1; beam above that supporting the floor, every 10 stories with a spanning slab, you are 10' lower then would be with the beam, and can get an extra story in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Interesting, thanks for the insight thus far.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by q12

The argument we should compare ourselves to small cities is used over and over by the NIMBY'S and Citizens Against Virtually Everything (CAVEMEN).

As a lot of forumers have pointed out, we are ahead of many cities of similar size and our regional importance factors into that. London is a blip in Ontario whereas Halifax is the largest metropolitan centre in this region of Canada. We are a media centre, air transportation centre etc.

Dismissing 120,000 people in Halifax is laughable. It's like you think there is this large population living in shacks out in the woods:

When it's probably more like this:

Yes, Halifax already punches well above its weight nationally, and looks like a somewhat bigger city than it really is. Exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks.

I'm sorry it offends you so much when I say Halifax isn't a city of 5 or 600,000 people. But it just isn't, and trying to have everything a city of 600,000 has is only leading to disappointment and a serious inferiority complex.

I know we hate any hint that Halifax is indeed a fairly small city. But we need to get over that inferiority complex and recognize that we're actually doing pretty darned well for our size. That's not NIMBY or against anything. It's optimism. Things are good here! Far better than many people seem to think.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Tall versus wide has been mentioned in passing in this thread. I think a couple of us do feel it would be nice to see some of these miles-long 3 story buildings turned on their sides to become mile-high, narrow buildings, but we also understand that that's not necessarily feasible or even where suburbanites want to live.

Not wanting to restart any tall vs wide debate, but just wanting to understand the considerations when deciding to build tall vs wide. On this forum the blame for a perceived lack of tall buildings tends to be centered on NIMBYs, city councilors and viewplanes, not to mention the ubiquitous evil heritage advocates, but I'm guessing the considerations are much less simplistic than that.

The expectation that once a population hits a certain point then we should be granted "X" number of 40+ storey buildings also seems a little out there. We aren't entitled to tall buildings, it has to make business sense.

And I don't think the viewpoint of "suburbanites", as you call them, has much to do with it either - they're not the ones clamoring to live downtown.

As most things in our society, I suspect that $ will always be the ultimate deciding point, but I would like to understand the process in greater depth.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by q12

600,000 people within 1 hour or less commute (and they do commute).

Sheet Harbour is not in the circle so stop worrying about the 5 or 10,000 people out in the boonies.

We are a big and important metropolitan city in Canada. We have the 7th busiest airport in the country. Stop the negativity.

Let's expand the map a little more... 1.8 million people living within a 6 hour commute. Who's a small city now??



Sorry, couldn't resist.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Yes, Halifax already punches well above its weight nationally, and looks like a somewhat bigger city than it really is. Exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks.

I'm sorry it offends you so much when I say Halifax isn't a city of 5 or 600,000 people. But it just isn't, and trying to have everything a city of 600,000 has is only leading to disappointment and a serious inferiority complex.

I know we hate any hint that Halifax is indeed a fairly small city. But we need to get over that inferiority complex and recognize that we're actually doing pretty darned well for our size. That's not NIMBY or against anything. It's optimism. Things are good here! Far better than many people seem to think.

The Great Halifax Renaissance is well underway, as the activity on this board will suggest. It is good to punch above your weight, how else will you get better? And as good as we are doing for our size, we can do even better. For each project that is underway now, there are probably two that have been stunted, or stopped entirely. Spirit Place, St. Joseph's Square, Twisted Sisters or Queen's Landing spring to mind and I'm sure there are others. Maybe they weren't the right ones for the time. A stadium will come with time, hopefully one better designed than the one we were going to get.

Saving the Forum is actually a pretty forward move, recognizing that with more people living nearby, they will need convenient access to recreational facilities. Adding a gymnasium to the Forum is brilliant. It will probably mean the end to the Needham Centre somewhere down the road, but improved transit connections can keep options open for North End residents to access the new Forum.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Let's expand the map a little more... 1.8 million people living within a 6 hour commute. Who's a small city now??



Sorry, couldn't resist.

LOL. Yup. Circles make everything true.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

The Great Halifax Renaissance is well underway, as the activity on this board will suggest. It is good to punch above your weight, how else will you get better? And as good as we are doing for our size, we can do even better. For each project that is underway now, there are probably two that have been stunted, or stopped entirely. Spirit Place, St. Joseph's Square, Twisted Sisters or Queen's Landing spring to mind and I'm sure there are others. Maybe they weren't the right ones for the time. A stadium will come with time, hopefully one better designed than the one we were going to get.

Saving the Forum is actually a pretty forward move, recognizing that with more people living nearby, they will need convenient access to recreational facilities. Adding a gymnasium to the Forum is brilliant. It will probably mean the end to the Needham Centre somewhere down the road, but improved transit connections can keep options open for North End residents to access the new Forum.

Yup, totally agree. It's good to aim high, and it's worth noting all the obstruction that has happened to stop or delay numerous projects.

But exaggerating our population, comparing ourselves to other places that can't possibly be fair comparisons, etc. only serve to make us feel like we're failing. There's a huge thread in these discussions about how Halifax is a falure of a city because x, y, z backward dark ages blah blah blah. But it's not a failure at all.

Anyone can go read the comments on the Herald's story about the Forum. All the failure buzzwords are flying.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not wanting to restart any tall vs wide debate, but just wanting to understand the considerations when deciding to build tall vs wide. On this forum the blame for a perceived lack of tall buildings tends to be centered on NIMBYs, city councilors and viewplanes, not to mention the ubiquitous evil heritage advocates, but I'm guessing the considerations are much less simplistic than that.

The expectation that once a population hits a certain point then we should be granted "X" number of 40+ storey buildings also seems a little out there. We aren't entitled to tall buildings, it has to make business sense.

And I don't think the viewpoint of "suburbanites", as you call them, has much to do with it either - they're not the ones clamoring to live downtown.

As most things in our society, I suspect that $ will always be the ultimate deciding point, but I would like to understand the process in greater depth.

You asked if tall vs wide had been discussed. It was, only in passing, and only in reference to Clayton Park. Hence my comment about suburbanites. Perhaps I didn't explain that. And I realize i didn't answer your question about finacial consideration at all - it's because I don't know

But nobody said a city should be granted an entitlement of X 40 story buildings when it hits a certain population. I think you've misinterpreted my words. I was trying to make the point that a city less than XXXXXX population is unlikely to have any buildings of XX height. I think there is a critical mass below which construction of XX story buildings doesn't often happen. That's all.

Saying, for example, that "only cities of 700,000 people are likely to have 40 story buildings" is not the same as saying "all cities must start constructing 40 story buildings immediately upon hitting 700,000 population".

[counterfactual]

So, the last two pages of this threads seems to consist of a lot of self-congratulatory posts expressing solidarity in the battle against the much hated "negative" Haligonian whose conception of value for a city is entirely attached to the number of 40 storey towers!

This negative Haligonian apparently believes that if since "we don't have 40 story towers, we must be small minded and backwards"!!

Not only that, but this phantom menace Haligonian believes 40+ storey towers are *intrinsically valuable*. As in, they are ends in themselves-- it's not about density or planning or battling sprawl. No. Tall buildings have inherent worth. They are Kantian subjects-- not practical instruments to other ends!

Finally, this negative Haligonian has a special equation in his or her brain-- he or she believes that once a city hits a particular population, then voila! We are entitled to a specific number of 40 storey towers!

So many strawmen, I honestly don't know where to begin?

First, can someone please show me this Haligonian? On SSP or... anywhere? Show me a post or quote, anything, that suggests he or she exists. I'm skeptical, yet truly intrigued.

Second, the debate was never about whether or not London had a prettier skyline than Halifax. Halifax is a far, far, far, greater and more beautiful city. But it doesn't mean we cannot learn things from London, whether policy or urban planning, etc.

The only point I was trying to make, with the comparison, was to respond to the earlier strong opposition-- even *mocking*-- of the idea that we might have a high rise development on Quinpool Road, as if such a suggestion itself was inherently ridiculous.

That is, since cities with comparable populations like London had more highrise developments, it was entirely reasonable to suggest similar developments here. That was it. That was my only point.

Somehow this discussion transformed into a debate that London had a nicer skyline?!

Finally, I agree with the idea we punch above our weight-- we do-- but that doesn't mean we have to pretend we're small-- by Canadian standards we aren't. Of course, we're small by international standards, but in Canada we're a capital city. Among the largest urban centres, population wise, in the country. The data speaks for itself.

In fact, Halifax is unique in Canada in that it is perhaps it is one of the few-- maybe only-- major urban centers in the country that economic impact beyond its borders. We're a regional economic engine.

Report: Halifax shares its clout

May 17, 2012 - 8:30pm BY JOHN DEMONT BUSINESS REPORTER

City unique in ‘influence beyond its own borders’

Halifax’s economic clout reverberates as much in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as in Nova Scotia, a new report concludes.

Indeed, the report’s author says Halifax is unique among Canada’s economic powerhouse cities.

“Our study shows that Canada’s census metropolitan areas make large contributions to their provincial economies,” Alan Arcand, principal economist with the Conference Board of Canada’s Centre for Municipal Studies, said in an interview Thursday.

“Halifax is the only one that has an influence beyond its own borders.”

That, he argues, should be a factor when Ottawa considers ways to stimulate the national economy.

“When the federal goverment is handing money out to cities, they shouldn’t spread it around like peanut butter,” Arcand said.

“They should target hub cities (like Halifax) because investing in hub cities means even more growth in outlying regions.”

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/97434-report-halifax-shares-its-clout

The small little city by the sea....

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

So, the last two pages of this threads seems to consist of a lot of self-congratulatory posts expressing solidarity in the battle against the much hated "negative" Haligonian whose conception of value for a city is entirely attached to the number of 40 storey towers!

This negative Haligonian apparently believes that if since "we don't have 40 story towers, we must be small minded and backwards"!!

Not only that, but this phantom menace Haligonian believes 40+ storey towers are *intrinsically valuable*. As in, they are ends in themselves-- it's not about density or planning or battling sprawl. No. Tall buildings have inherent worth. They are Kantian subjects-- not practical instruments to other ends!

Finally, this negative Haligonian has a special equation in his or her brain-- he or she believes that once a city hits a particular population, then voila! We are entitled to a specific number of 40 storey towers!

So many strawmen, I honestly don't know where to begin?

First, can someone please show me this Haligonian? On SSP or... anywhere? Show me a post or quote, anything, that suggests he or she exists. I'm skeptical, yet truly intrigued.

Second, the debate was never about whether or not London had a prettier skyline than Halifax. Halifax is a far, far, far, greater and more beautiful city. But it doesn't mean we cannot learn things from London, whether policy or urban planning, etc.

The only point I was trying to make, with the comparison, was to respond to the earlier strong opposition-- even *mocking*-- of the idea that we might have a high rise development on Quinpool Road, as if such a suggestion itself was inherently ridiculous.

That is, since cities with comparable populations like London had more highrise developments, it was entirely reasonable to suggest similar developments here. That was it. That was my only point.

Somehow this discussion transformed into a debate that London had a nicer skyline?!

Finally, I agree with the idea we punch above our weight-- we do-- but that doesn't mean we have to pretend we're small. I'm still perplexed as why some feel the need to deny that Halifax is a large urban center in Canada. We're a capital city. Among the largest urban centres, population wise, in the country. The data speaks for itself.

In fact, Halifax is unique in Canada in that it is perhaps it is one of the few-- maybe only-- major urban centers in the country that economic impact beyond its borders. We're a regional economic engine.



The small little city by the sea....

Well, um, thanks for adding a few more of these mischievous "straw men" of lore to the discussion, like "Halifax is not a city." That's a pretty big one. Nobody said that. (But it's not large. Virtually nowhere on Earth would Halifax be considered a LARGE city. (Maybe we need to get out more and see the world? See how big it really, is, despite Disney's insistent little song?) But I guess I should give up talking sense on that point. Small is bad, mmmmmkay?)

And you're the one who showed us all your mathematical wizardry (I jest, I jest!) to demonstrate to us how inferior the Halifax skyline is to London's. That was your argument. No one made it up. No straw man there.

Haven't seen any self-congratulations either. Just people crunching numbers, comparing photos, and a bit of negotiating around reasonable, managed expectations. No agreement on what those are yet, though!

I think we can agree, though, that this is a ridiculous argument. Let's just agree to disagree on the rest. You keep on insisting that Halifax is a LARGE city that needs to PROVE itself, you know, PROVE that it's LARGE, like 40 STORIES LARGE! - Counterfactually, of course - and I'll keep on being very thankful that I live in this small but interesting city where lots of exciting things are starting to happen and I don't need to feel terribly inferior because I desperately want it to be something it isn't.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by portapetey

You asked if tall vs wide had been discussed. It was, only in passing, and only in reference to Clayton Park. Hence my comment about suburbanites. Perhaps I didn't explain that. And I realize i didn't answer your question about finacial consideration at all - it's because I don't know

But nobody said a city should be granted an entitlement of X 40 story buildings when it hits a certain population. I think you've misinterpreted my words. I was trying to make the point that a city less than XXXXXX population is unlikely to have any buildings of XX height. I think there is a critical mass below which construction of XX story buildings doesn't often happen. That's all.

Saying, for example, that "only cities of 700,000 people are likely to have 40 story buildings" is not the same as saying "all cities must start constructing 40 story buildings immediately upon hitting 700,000 population".

Here is an example of a tiny city with 40+ storey buildings in your own backyard.

Niagara Falls
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Niagara+F...-gugy3114tqFb87XkVw&cbp=12,275.58,,0,-45

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Anyone can go read the comments on the Herald's story about the Forum. All the failure buzzwords are flying.

And on the Metro story as well. I've long since learned that they represent a minority opinion. They have no faith in the Forum association to bring their plan in on budget, but they have 100% faith that the city and CFB joint plan would not only come in under budget, but would be done early! Two guys were bowing down to Gloria for getting a four-pad for her "community". That one speaks for itself...

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Empire

Here is and example of a tiny city with 40+ storey buildings in your own backyard.

Niagara Falls
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Niagara+F...-gugy3114tqFb87XkVw&cbp=12,275.58,,0,-45

Not a bad find.

Of course, we have a bit of that Vegas-like wedding-industrial-complex mega-hotel thing happening in Viagra Falls.

And it is not quite an isolated city, being pretty much contiguous with St. Catherine's and a couple other small cities with a total Niagara Regional Municipality over 430,000, as well as with the Niagara Falls (NY)-Buffalo metro area of 1.2 million.

So aren't we really talking about an urban "agglomeration" (I always find that such a weird word) or conurbation (also funny!) of 1.6 million+?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

You asked if tall vs wide had been discussed. It was, only in passing, and only in reference to Clayton Park. Hence my comment about suburbanites. Perhaps I didn't explain that. And I realize i didn't answer your question about finacial consideration at all - it's because I don't know

Yeah, I see what you mean. I wasn't too clear - I was referring to tall vs wide in a broader sense as it has been discussed much in these forums. Just hoping to get some insight and gain more knowledge on the matter.

No worries, it doesn't seem that many others know the process either, or at least aren't willing to share.

But nobody said a city should be granted an entitlement of X 40 story buildings when it hits a certain population. I think you've misinterpreted my words. I was trying to make the point that a city less than XXXXXX population is unlikely to have any buildings of XX height. I think there is a critical mass below which construction of XX story buildings doesn't often happen. That's all.

Saying, for example, that "only cities of 700,000 people are likely to have 40 story buildings" is not the same as saying "all cities must start constructing 40 story buildings immediately upon hitting 700,000 population".

I understand what you meant, but then the whole debate over what constitutes the population of Halifax seemed to add some credence that there is an expectation for tall buildings automatically to be built once we meet some magical population threshold. Again, I think that this stuff will be built when there is a good business case for it and not before.

I am on board with the points you're trying to make and generally agree with almost all of them. I probably haven't been communicating my ideas as clearly as I'd like to.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

And on the Metro story as well. I've long since learned that they represent a minority opinion. They have no faith in the Forum association to bring their plan in on budget, but they have 100% faith that the city and CFB joint plan would not only come in under budget, but would be done early! Two guys were bowing down to Gloria for getting a four-pad for her "community". That one speaks for itself...

Yeah. They probably are in the minority, but they are almost as loud as the Antidevelopment Trust, just not as organized. And I read some similar language here sometimes. In any case, there is always a happy medium somewhere if people are willing to talk it out and find it....which doesn't happen often enough, apparently!

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, I see what you mean. I wasn't too clear - I was referring to tall vs wide in a broader sense as it has been discussed much in these forums. Just hoping to get some insight and gain more knowledge on the matter.

No worries, it doesn't seem that many others know the process either, or at least aren't willing to share.

I understand what you meant, but then the whole debate over what constitutes the population of Halifax seemed to add some credence that there is an expectation for tall buildings automatically to be built once we meet some magical population threshold. Again, I think that this stuff will be built when there is a good business case for it and not before.

I am on board with the points you're trying to make and generally agree with almost all of them. I probably haven't been communicating my ideas as clearly as I'd like to.

And maybe i misunderstood you to be arguing against my "critical mass" point when all you were really saying was "yeah, but it's not an automatic entitlement either".

All good! More beer!