Future Canadian Skylines

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by LFC

I do agree in the sense it creates a large massing frontage along the streetscape, but developers are getting more creative with incorporating architectural facades, false window glazing to mimic levels of living/commercial spaces etc.

One Water development by Kerhkoff has done a nice job of incorporating street front shops into their podium design.

That's not bad. There's a fair bit of articulation to break up the massing. I don't understand why the two storey podium infront of the 3 or 4 storey parkade.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zoomer

As for Halifax, Someone123 I think you added an extra zero? The number of units submitted for approval is likely 8,500, not 85,000.

I'm not sure what the source was but I recall the HRM backlog was pegged around 85,000 units. They are swamped with applications. Not all proposed units will be built, and many will take years or decades. The development proposed at just 1 mall is 5,560 units.

There may be some interesting proposals in the mix that we haven't seen yet because they haven't made their way to public hearings, review boards, etc.

Shannon Park is interesting. It is a parcel next to the MacKay bridge. I got the impression it was lowrise but they have 5 x 90 m parcels including 2 next to the bridge. They say that could have 7,000 residents in total. I find it a bit arbitrary/annoying that so many of these parcels are 90 m. It's pretty likely Halifax is just going to turn into a blob of ~90 m buildings. There are elevation differences around the city so that makes things look a bit better. Parts of the city gets up to around 150 m above sea level. They should put some 90 m towers there (it does currently have some radio towers).

[WhipperSnapper]

That feels like a massive number; high potential for things to get overlooked during the process. Any idea the number of unbuilt, approved units? (I guess there's always the chance land use approval being easier than the development permit process)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That feels like a massive number; high potential for things to get overlooked during the process. Any idea the number of unbuilt, approved units?

They had a breakdown but I can't remember or find it now. I think the unbuilt approved number was quite low (maybe 0.5-2 years of supply), as was the number approved in 2020. I got the impression there really was a planning bottleneck.

The province announced a plan to get involved by setting up a joint committee that would have the power to enact changes or perhaps just approve plans or tweak the planning rules but everything I've seen about that so far has been vague.

[WhipperSnapper]

That's pretty dire. The second part may be necessary but, it's damn scary.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's pretty dire. The second part may be necessary but, it's damn scary.

Yes. It has a wide range of uncertainty. Maybe a nothingburger, very good, or very bad. Although I wonder how much value is really provided by a lot of HRM planning, and it is truly absurd and almost certainly a net negative for people to be constrained in their housing options because the municipality can't hire planners and isn't nimble enough to adjust their rules such that their workforce can handle the volume required. There are a lot of established developers and they know what people want (their customers don't want gridlock halfway through a 20-year development plan etc.).

I hope the response isn't something like "omg, we need housing now, tear down all historic buildings".

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't have a lot of faith in consumers to buy product that is beneficial in adding rather than subtracting from its environment. The city should be hiring additional staff to not only address the applications but to modernize the planning process. Of course, budgeting complicates hiring and public sector unions usually complicate things further. Property owners are quick to file suits against revisions that impact their redevelopment potential as it pertains to property value. (no real intent on redeveloping their asset)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't have a lot of faith in consumers to buy product that is beneficial in adding rather than subtracting from its environment. The city should be hiring additional staff to not only address the applications but to modernize the planning process.

I don't necessarily disagree but I wonder what value is provided by large parts of the process. Often developers propose something, it goes into the black hole for many months, and then something very similar is approved. One common thing in Halifax is the ritual sacrifice of a few floors, which I assume local developers now build into their process (if you want X floors, propose X * 1.2 then after 4 months of committees offer to cut it to X). I am not sure you'd feel that the suburban developments that are approved by HRM planning are beneficial to the environment.

The development rules are very complicated and old in many cases, and updating plans often takes so long that they're somewhat outdated by the time that process is complete. The plan recently put in place for the inner city was kicked off maybe a decade earlier. The outcome was heavily anchored to the initial conditions set but the needs of the city have changed pretty substantially during that time, including the population changing considerably (the grey haired homeowners of 10-15 years ago, some whom are no longer with us, have more say than the more numerous people who moved to the city 5 years ago; an immigrant who will move to the city 3 years from now will not show up to a planning hearing).

I think this heavy inertia plus local warped political environment played a role in how the province sees the issue.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Thanks!

As for doing a skyline for Victoria, I really do want to do it, but I'm unfortunately starting to get to the point where I'm being spread a bit thin with everything I have going on, plus it's been difficult lately for me to get to my hobbies. I also dig up and consolidate all of the development information (I track it all in a spreadsheet too) in addition to the modelling aspect to make sure I get as much coverage as possible, which takes additional time. Other cities I have been wanting to get to are Burnaby and Brampton, but I have been holding off on them for the sake of not being overwhelmed.

For Burlington, the major reason that I'm going to do it is because someone who knows the development scene dug up and consolidated all of the development information when they asked me to do it. The same is true to an extent for Kitchener. I'd more than welcome this kind of arrangement for additional skylines if anyone is interested.

Yep, I wouldn’t pick Victoria ahead of many other cities either; for example, the difference with all the new 30 and 40 storey buildings in Kelowna is more dramatic and interesting. If and when you do have time, even a year or two from now I’d be happy to provide you with all the info, renderings from design submissions, yadda, yadda!

[905er]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Where did I say it's not building up?

I don't know the extent of downtown Brampton's boundaries. To say 4 towers are in the downtown "core" is inferring that they are all close to one another. They are not. Also, this thread put emphasis on 3D development maps over imaging probable near future skylines. In other words, proposals are just as important as under construction. I haven't seen anything in Brampton that comes close to the scale and clustering of proposals as in any number of 905 suburbs. (much of it is not in the SSP Database)

the 4 new towers are all close to one another.. two are side by side and are the same development, the other two are two seperate developments, literally down the same street. The other proposals are more spread out, but two significant 40 plus story proposals are right downtown. I live in the immediate area so this time around, "I am the law"

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by someone123

I find it a bit arbitrary/annoying that so many of these parcels are 90 m. It's pretty likely Halifax is just going to turn into a blob of ~90 m buildings. There are elevation differences around the city so that makes things look a bit better. Parts of the city gets up to around 150 m above sea level. They should put some 90 m towers there (it does currently have some radio towers).

90 metres - that’s about 30 residential storeys - the height elevation will help. I’d much rather see city planners strive for variety in height, even if that means going above 90 m for some and below for others. For years Vancouver had a table top skyline because most new buildings were 20 to 35 storeys. Now with more in the 40s and a few in the 50 to 60 range it makes all the difference.

I hope to see Victoria’s future skyline show more variation by permitting a few buildings in the 30 storey range, but more so by breaking up blocks of monotonous height. It seems like the safe height here to get approval now is 17 storeys - so instead of two 17’s in a new proposal - the recommendation should be a 21 and a 13. Or whatever combo of that equals 34, and looks good in that context/surrounding blocks. Two 27’s become a 34 and 20. Heck, I’d take a 10 and an 18 any day over 14 and 14. If you’re building next to an existing 20 storey, the height should be at least 4 storeys higher or lower - how you do that if zoning permits 20 storeys.. well I haven’t thought that through, lol. Personally I like a well integrated, pedestrian friendly streetscape with a jumble of quirky and visually interesting heights vs uniformity.

Thanks LFC for the podium pics, most do look great! While it might be nice to break it up into less homegenous podiums, there’s a greater risk of that turning into Disneyland looking false storefronts, or what you see at outdoor malls that try to mimic a city streetscape.

[Nouvellecosse]

Very nice Halifax renderings! It's great to see more housing coming down the pipes given the current shortage, although I'd prefer to see more of those surface parking lots in downtown Dartmouth filled in before the stuff by the bridge given downtown's greater potential as a vibrant, interesting district.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 905er

the 4 new towers are all close to one another.. two are side by side and are the same development, the other two are two seperate developments, literally down the same street. The other proposals are more spread out, but two significant 40 plus story proposals are right downtown. I live in the immediate area so this time around, "I am the law"

We may not be talking about the same ones. One of the four I know is east of Etobicoke Creek. Like i said, I don't know the boundaries of Downtown Brampton but, that is pretty far from the the downtown core. It's also at least a 25 minutes to walk there from 45 Railroad.

There was a massive concept plan for a golf course I think. There's one for the Bramalea mall too (Shoppers World?) Have any of these progress to proposal status? (zoning exercise)?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zoomer

90 metres - that’s about 30 residential storeys - the height elevation will help. I’d much rather see city planners strive for variety in height, even if that means going above 90 m for some and below for others. For years Vancouver had a table top skyline because most new buildings were 20 to 35 storeys. Now with more in the 40s and a few in the 50 to 60 range it makes all the difference.

The developments in Halifax are usually constrained by the height limits, i.e. the developers would go bigger if they could, so whatever shape the planners pick is what you end up seeing eventually in the end result. For some of the old height rules in Halifax (still in effect) there is no evidence written to suggest they gave consideration to what this does to the appearance of the buildings. Their goals were to preserve views, mostly of scenery, and limit density. Vancouver's planning has involved some attention to the skyline itself.

There is no way that there will be enough demand to fill in many square km with 90 m buildings but the "nodes" are likely to have a tabletop appearance if nothing changes.

I don't think it's a big deal but it would be pretty trivial in a lot of cases to give developers more flexibility by, say, specifying FAR over larger multi-lot parcels that they develop. In a location like Shannon Park there is ~0 impact to existing residents whether the taller tower is 150 m or 90 m. Around Cogswell there is impact to the Citadel square but I don't think it's a good trade-off ("ban everything above 83 m in this district so we limit visible buildings to those built before 1980"). King's Wharf was allowed something a bit taller (I think 108 m or something) because it's literally by itself at the end of a small peninsula in the harbour.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't necessarily disagree but I wonder what value is provided by large parts of the process. Often developers propose something, it goes into the black hole for many months, and then something very similar is approved. One common thing in Halifax is the ritual sacrifice of a few floors, which I assume local developers now build into their process (if you want X floors, propose X * 1.2 then after 4 months of committees offer to cut it to X). I am not sure you'd feel that the suburban developments that are approved by HRM planning are beneficial to the environment.

The development rules are very complicated and old in many cases, and updating plans often takes so long that they're somewhat outdated by the time that process is complete. The plan recently put in place for the inner city was kicked off maybe a decade earlier. The outcome was heavily anchored to the initial conditions set but the needs of the city have changed pretty substantially during that time, including the population changing considerably (the grey haired homeowners of 10-15 years ago, some whom are no longer with us, have more say than the more numerous people who moved to the city 5 years ago; an immigrant who will move to the city 3 years from now will not show up to a planning hearing).

I think this heavy inertia plus local warped political environment played a role in how the province sees the issue.

I don't really know the Halifax marketplace so my perspective is more Toronto centric. Things aren't as bad as I usually make them out to be (no fun not embellishing a little) however, the city is overbuilding properties that has already produced an aggregate sum of negative consequences for these communities at large. Most remain minor nuisances. Some have already progressed further. None have slow down sales for new development.

This is the result of site specific zoning with leeway dependent on the planner's mood and the amount fleeced from developers for community improvements vs strong binding neighbourhood rules that let developers build as of right and dismisses any application deemed excessive by those rules.

Removing floors over heights concerns that don't really have anything to do with shadowing is arbitrary at its very best. Toronto is obsessed with height which is really unfortunate as density usually falls by the wayside. Density is the one that is critical in getting things right.

I'm not a fan of block busting whether its an established commercial block or a stretch of single family homes. We can improve on infill subdivision design and certainly allow for intensification with small scaled multi-family in established areas that compliment rather than re-designate. Replacing it all with midrises and rowhouses is popular opinion on SSP. I don't know. I just think about the canopy of trees among other things.

[905er]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

We may not be talking about the same ones. One of the four I know is east of Etobicoke Creek. Like i said, I don't know the boundaries of Downtown Brampton but, that is pretty far from the the downtown core. It's also at least a 25 minutes to walk there from 45 Railroad.

There was a massive concept plan for a golf course I think. There's one for the Bramalea mall too (Shoppers World?) Have any of these progress to proposal status? (zoning exercise)?

Brampton is notoriously slow when it comes to developments.. the shoppers world proposal will likely take a long time before anything comes of it. The 4 in the immediate downtown (queen/main) are quite significant for Brampton and are all topped out.. they are:

https://condos.ca/brampton/45-railroad-apartments-45-railroad-st

https://symphonycondos.ca/

http://toddglen.com/project/205-queen-street-east-brampton-ontario/

The balconies on the last one are atrocious and look cheap. ugh.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by LFC

That is correct, the low lying area along Lake Okanagan where downtown is located is a alluvial fan, so its quite silty with a shallow water table - which can vary in depths in the late Spring, on some of the projects Ive been apart of, Ive seen it only about 6' deep.

So yes, majority (but not all) of our towers are built on parking podiums.

All of the current and upcoming projects have some very aesthetically appealing podium designs.

Some examples of Podiums on our upcoming projects:

Call me crazy but with the nicer aesthetics and street front retail being used now I actually like the podiums. I feel that they give Kelowna a more hefty “big city canyon” feel. They also help give Kelowna its own urban identity separate from Vancouver and Victoria.

I can understand how someone can dislike them though.

[steveve]

North York City Centre skyline development:

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

The province announced a plan to get involved by setting up a joint committee that would have the power to enact changes or perhaps just approve plans or tweak the planning rules but everything I've seen about that so far has been vague.

CBC: In search of housing solutions, panel puts Halifax development process under the microscope
Housing minister says he wants to shave years off time needed to build large projects

The chair of a housing panel struck by the provincial government last year says members are working urgently to "dissect" the development process in Halifax, and find ways to speed up the construction of new places for people to live.

"All the task force members understand the magnitude of what we're doing and we can't get this wrong," said Geoff MacLellan.

A shortage of housing has been brewing in Halifax Regional Municipality for years. One estimate of the size of the shortage is between 20,000 and 25,000 units.

The supply-demand imbalance has kept vacancy rates hovering close to zero for the past few years, as rents and home prices have risen.

...

Lohr, the housing minister, said he expects recommendations from the panel soon and is ready to make any needed changes. He said he wants to shave years off the time required to get new housing projects built.

"Anecdotally, we've heard that sometimes large scale projects take four, five, six, seven, eight years to go through. That's just too much time."

Meanwhile, Lohr said work is ongoing to spend the $35 million committed last fall to address the province's housing crisis.

That money was promised as part of a wide-ranging housing strategy that includes maintaining a two per cent cap on rents for the next two years while promoting and spending on new construction.

[steveve]

Future Toronto skyline projections: