[Halifax] The Roy (1650 Granville) | 71 M | 22 FL | Completed - Page 41

Hali87 · #**801** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 11:47 PM**

someone123 · #**802** Posted **Jan 6, 2016, 12:45 AM**

The weedy United Gulf lot is going to look more and more out of place. The city should probably have bought it back and auctioned it off to a new developer.

OldDartmouthMark · #**803** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

The weedy United Gulf lot is going to look more and more out of place. The city should probably have bought it back and auctioned it off to a new developer.

Jonovision · #**804** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

The weedy United Gulf lot is going to look more and more out of place. The city should probably have bought it back and auctioned it off to a new developer.

I'm pretty sure it is not within the cities legal right to expropriate land just because a developer is not building only to sell it to another developer. It might be possible if it was for a civic building though.

someone123 · #**805** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I'm pretty sure it is not within the cities legal right to expropriate land just because a developer is not building only to sell it to another developer. It might be possible if it was for a civic building though.

This lot was purchased from the city and apparently there was a buyback provision. It might have expired by now.

The Sister sites have similar provisions.

Colin May · #**806** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 1:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I'm pretty sure it is not within the cities legal right to expropriate land just because a developer is not building only to sell it to another developer. It might be possible if it was for a civic building though.

The city can expropriate any property except for federal and provincial property but usually there is an attempt to purchase.
They can just say they need the land for "Revitalization' and pay into court the assessed value of the land.
A large parcel in downtown Dartmouth remains vacant after it was expropriated on March 31 1978 as part of an extensive expropriation of properties in the area.
I like expropriation, it gives a town or city the opportunity to meet planning goals without regard to short term profit or loss.

counterfactual · #**807** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

The weedy United Gulf lot is going to look more and more out of place. The city should probably have bought it back and auctioned it off to a new developer.

I also strongly agree.

United Gulf have now been sitting on this lot for almost two years, since their unrealistic Skye Tower bid was rejected. They also let the Twisted Sister DA expire. They're never going to do anything on this lot.

The City, once again, stupidly selected their inferior bid just because they offered more money for the lot, despite superior bids from far more experienced and reputable developers (Lawen, Southwest for example), at only a slight discount on price offered.

They should buy it back. Bousquet covered the original buy back clause in this piece a few years back. Still holds up:

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/arch...er-5-million-to-buy-a-gravel-parking-lot

This is a lot like the Imagine Bloomfield disaster. Another tendering process the City completely ruined, by selected a winning bid primarily based on financial considerations (ignoring other, IMHO, more important factors, like design, creativity, consultation etc).

We've already lost literally a decade with the Texpark site. Had the City been smart and responsible when it selected a bidder in 2004, we likely would have had a great development here by now-- or at least one would be in progress.

Hali87 · #**808** Posted **Jan 11, 2016, 9:15 PM**

Untitled by Hali87, on Flickr

someone123 · #**809** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 5:48 AM**

Here's one from the Barrington Street side:

Source

fenwick16 · #**810** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 9:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's one from the Barrington Street side:

It is exciting to see it take shape.

Although completely inappropriate for a skyscraper/development forum, here is another image from the same source that made me smile:

Jonovision · #**811** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 4:19 PM**

Keith P. · #**812** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 4:47 PM**

I wonder if that "Vogue Optical" sign is going to get removed?

Jonovision · #**813** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 8:19 PM**

fenwick16 · #**814** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 8:30 PM**

Thanks for the picture Jonovision.

I assume with better weather coming, and since they are well past ground floor now, that progress will accelerate in the next few months. Maybe it will be topped out by the end of July (this is my guess).

someone123 · #**815** Posted **Mar 13, 2016, 8:27 PM**

View from the Barrington side. Looks like they'll be onto the upper floors soon. I'm eager to see what the cladding ends up looking like on the lower floors.

Source

TheGreenBastard · #**816** Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 3:20 AM**

Is this development still planned to be 71m?

someone123 · #**817** Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 5:31 AM**

I think so. I believe 71 m is the height in the DA and it's probably the ramparts maximum. Most developments go up to the maximum permitted height.

Jonovision · #**818** Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 3:25 PM**

TheGreenBastard · #**819** Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I took almost the exact same photo!

OldDartmouthMark · #**820** Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 12:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm eager to see what the cladding ends up looking like on the lower floors.

I am too, actually. While I was dismayed at the reports of the original materials apparently being hauled away as debris (when the agreement as I understood it, was to rebuild the façade using original materials), all will be forgiven if they build a façade with high-quality materials that is in keeping with the original design.

I will remain optimistic that they will not disappoint.