[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Aegon123

I saw some workers from Flynn Construction inspecting the site, so hopefully there will soon be some action on this site.

The project as approved is quite bland and uninspiring, another 20-storey "tabletop" development that won't add anything of distinction to the downtown core. Very disappointing.

But I agree it'll be great to have something finally filling that hole.

Let's hope the Ralston lot spawns something better.

[someone123]

It's funny because when first proposed this would have been major but now there are more towers built up to the "tabletop" ramparts limit. The previous taller iteration of Skye would have been more of a landmark but was unlikely to be approved.

If we forget our expectations around this being a landmark tower it looks like decent infill for the area. It is primarily the street level interaction and new housing/residents/businesses that will make a difference.

It's another example of the "monochrome" trend, dominated by white cladding material. Richmond Yards is similar.

Originally Posted by atbw

This and the Ralston lot make this part of downtown feel kind of odd. You get used to it a bit, but it’s weird that on a main thoroughfare in the densest part of the city, there’s two massive vacant lots.

It's too bad it's still like this despite all the construction, but maybe the "parking lot district" downtown will only last a few more years.

[Saul Goode]

Speaking of underused prime sites, does anyone know that status of this one?

Anyone? Bueller...?

[stevencourchene]

https://www.skyehalifax.ca/index.php/news

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by stevencourchene

https://www.skyehalifax.ca/index.php/news

Thanks, but as we knew, it was approved more than two years ago.

I was really asking (maybe I should have been more specific) if anyone knew when some actual construction work was supposed to get underway on the site.

The damn thing has been vacant for nearly twenty years now. It's a blight and an embarrassment.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Fake project.

Waye knew what this was about almost a decade ago, lol.

In the housing crisis we are currently facing, we need to take a good look at why prime lots like this can remain vacant while affordable housing is in the state that it is.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Waye knew what this was about almost a decade ago, lol.

Though wasn't that for the 40+ storey version that violated many planning rules and was never approved? I don't think there's anything far-fetched about the current iteration aside from the long track record of the developer doing nothing on this site.

Agreed that something is off when so many prime sites sit empty for so long when demand is so high. I think part of it is the tax system rewards this kind of behaviour. If United Gulf flipped this land now, how much profit would they make?

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by someone123

Though wasn't that for the 40+ storey version that violated many planning rules and was never approved? I don't think there's anything far-fetched about the current iteration aside from the long track record of the developer doing nothing on this site.

Agreed that something is off when so many prime sites sit empty for so long when demand is so high. I think part of it is the tax system rewards this kind of behaviour. If United Gulf flipped this land now, how much profit would they make?

Yep, I should've added context looking at it now. I was scrolling through the old posts reminiscing on the old 48 storey proposal and saw that comment, thought it was ironic considering that a decade has passed, and we've still seen nothing.

[Saul Goode]

United Gulf is an enigma to me. They've certainly built a fair amount, but they've also blown more smoke about phantom projects than any other developer I can think of off the top of my head.

The interminable vacancy of the Texpark site is just a damn disgrace.

I take anything they say with a 50-lb bag of road salt.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Waye knew what this was about almost a decade ago

No thanks to his opposition.

[Empire]

I really hope this goes back to the drawing board. The massing is far too heavy above level 10 for both towers. Downtown has developed a bulk tabletop skyline as was predicted with the persistent viewplane legislation. At present, the 'towers' resemble a white version of Cogswell Tower. The Design Review Committee needs to consider the appearance of the skyline. Not sure I've ever heard the skyline being discussed as an important component in the appearance of the city. Ottawa is a beautiful city but due to the height limit around Parliament Hill the skyline also has a tabletop appearance. One area that can break this trend is the Cogswell Interchange but time is running out....

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

The Design Review Committee needs to consider the appearance of the skyline.

Y'know, that's an interesting point. i don't know if the DRC considers "big picture" concepts like that. From what I've read, it seems that they look at things more microscopically, such as the actual building and how it relates to adjacent buildings and the immediate surrounding neighbourhood. Perhaps people in the know could speak more clearly of it.

I think the Centre Plan is probably the guiding force towards 'tabletopness', but it seems to have severely limited height in most areas of the city, not just downtown. With all the time and energy devoted to its creation (lots of time, though not sure how much energy), I can't see it changing in the next 10 years at least.

I feel that time has run out for significantly altering Halifax's skyline anyhow. Most of the available sites have been built out or have plans/construction currently in the works. The remaining sites probably wouldn't have much effect anyhow, except Cogswell, but then if height restrictions were removed there, you'd have one blob of tall buildings surrounded by 'tabletop'.

JMHO, but I've never put all that much value in how a city looks from afar anyhow, but that's just me. I still prefer emphasis on how it works from the pedestrian level.

[someone123]

In Vancouver there is some explicit skyline consideration earlier in the planning process than project design review, maybe more analogous to the Centre Plan or HRM by Design phase. They deliberately allowed more height on some sites.

My biggest problem with the height limits in Halifax is that I feel like some of them constrain developers for no reason. People will argue that density needs to be limited but this is not a valid argument; developers can build to different heights with the same FAR.

I think some of the viewplanes are good, but ramparts is not worth it, particularly for Cogswell.

I'd also argue that the viewplane rules are too rigid. They should allow for some incursion into the "frustums" by decorative elements or reconstruction of historical elements, NFB being the prime example of that (Salter's Gate was another).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Very much agree. "Too much density" seems like a cop-out by the city to not budget for a robust transit system. I would argue that even FAR limits could, and perhaps should, be expanded with careful planning of the peripherals.

Also, ramparts are kind of ridiculous in a modern city, and it's not like Halifax's main claim to fame is an authentic 1800s military experience within the Citadel. I would bet that nobody who visits there as a tourist or otherwise even thinks that not seeing a building greatly enhances their experience. And IMHO, the cost of limiting downtown growth for the experience of one tourist/historical site is too great. Meanwhile the heritage that the everyday person might appreciate more, the older buildings of the downtown, get little to no consideration for protection... it's kind of bizarre, really.

My view is similar for viewplanes, especially for examples like the NFB that you mention.

[Hali87]

In terms of Ramparts/Viewplanes, I think the city should either review those and/or go all in on developing them into something more appreciable by the casual public/tourists. Permanently lighting up the signal mast in a more dignified way would be a good start - I'd even want to look at some way of bringing people to the top of the signal mast as a sort of observation tower. Since most of the viewplanes are between specific points on the Hill and the Harbour... set up binoculars (or clip-on zoom lenses for phones) at points along the hill and float something interesting in the Harbour within the viewplanes for people to look at and take photos of. Or if each of the views are historically significant for some specific reason... make that clear. The bylaws only make sense to the extent that people care about the views, and if the views are made more interesting and engaging people will care more. As it stands there isn't really any promotion of any of this and public awareness of these views is about as low as it could be.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

United Gulf is an enigma to me. They've certainly built a fair amount, but they've also blown more smoke about phantom projects than any other developer I can think of off the top of my head.

The interminable vacancy of the Texpark site is just a damn disgrace.

I take anything they say with a 50-lb bag of road salt.

It’s weird. This was the first big “urban planning” fight I noticed, decades ago. I was in university and it seemed like nothing had been built for years (nor would anything be for many years to come).

Now, finally, there seems to be a grudging, belated acceptance on the part of council that if population (and tax dollars) are to grow, people actually need to live somewhere. Many projects have been proposed, opposed, modified, and finally completed.

And still this lot sits empty…

[Empire]

I think the viewplane legislation has failed. If you go to Citadel Hill and scan the harbour you will see that the areas where viewplanes are in effect there are 80"s stubby buildings blocking harbour views. The viewplane legislation should have allowed for taller buildings in concert with very low historic buildings that could allow a clear view of the harbour. In my opinion, the VP legislation was not only an attempt to protect the view but to thwart taller buildings in general. It is time to move this city in an innovative direction.

[Colin May]

Tax dollars are growing off the peninsula. Not many families can afford to live on the peninsula and the residential boom for family homes is all off peninsula and over time more voting power will be held outside the Centre Plan area. Traffic will continue to be a mess and electric buses and/or an electric ferry will be a waste of money. The future lies outside the urban centre and clogged roads at commute time will be an even bigger headache.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Tax dollars are growing off the peninsula. Not many families can afford to live on the peninsula and the residential boom for family homes is all off peninsula and over time more voting power will be held outside the Centre Plan area. Traffic will continue to be a mess and electric buses and/or an electric ferry will be a waste of money. The future lies outside the urban centre and clogged roads at commute time will be an even bigger headache.

I don't disagree with most of this. As usual, our esteemed Council has been touting the wrong things and leading the city in a direction where people did not want it to go. See the feedback the last week or two from the disabled about the changes to SGR as just the latest example. DT Halifax has already become a largely hostile and unwelcoming place to many taxpayers and it seems to be only getting worse.

Of course, if Skye had already been built, it might be notable only for being the country's largest AirBnB.

[WhipperSnapper]

It probably wouldn't make the Top Ten