General Updates and News

[Jonovision]

ANS was reporting today that Louie Lowan will be going to council in the near future to seek a development agreement for his holdings on Spring Garden Road up near the Tim Hortons close to Robie. He is looking to building something in the range of 16-22 stories.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

ANS was reporting today that Louie Lowan will be going to council in the near future to seek a development agreement for his holdings on Spring Garden Road up near the Tim Hortons close to Robie. He is looking to building something in the range of 16-22 stories.

What is the HRMbD regulation on height in that area?

I am certainly glad he is proposing 22 stories because, given the St Josephs debacle, we will probably end up with this being cut back. Might as well start high then!

Having said that, I assume StJ development wasn't covered by HRMbD... is this one? I can never keep track of where exactly the boundary ends for it!

I am glad to see that it is Dexel though... just given that they are one of those few developers who have been moving forward with projects of late (The Vic, City Centre expansion).

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by beyeas

What is the HRMbD regulation on height in that area?

I am certainly glad he is proposing 22 stories because, given the St Josephs debacle, we will probably end up with this being cut back. Might as well start high then!

Having said that, I assume StJ development wasn't covered by HRMbD... is this one? I can never keep track of where exactly the boundary ends for it!

I am glad to see that it is Dexel though... just given that they are one of those few developers who have been moving forward with projects of late (The Vic, City Centre expansion).

I think this is outside the HRMbD boundaries.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by beyeas

What is the HRMbD regulation on height in that area?

I am certainly glad he is proposing 22 stories because, given the St Josephs debacle, we will probably end up with this being cut back. Might as well start high then!

Having said that, I assume StJ development wasn't covered by HRMbD... is this one? I can never keep track of where exactly the boundary ends for it!

I am glad to see that it is Dexel though... just given that they are one of those few developers who have been moving forward with projects of late (The Vic, City Centre expansion).

The area is outside of HbD; so the typical height precincts and zoning height regulations will apply. If memory serves me; the area is at 35' for the height precincts; which means that any building over that height must obtain a development agreement.

Certainly the area has context to support something that tall (with the adjacent high density residential - the tallest appears to be 21/22 stories) - my only concern would be the fact that there is a heritage streetfront along Carlton. That may cause our 'friends' at the Heritage Trust to intervene in someway.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

my only concern would be the fact that there is a heritage streetfront along Carlton. That may cause our 'friends' at the Heritage Trust to intervene in someway.

Indeed. On a related note, I was at Baton Rouge on Saturday night before the AGNS event... as I walked past the wreck that is the Waterside and noticed that they still have the "Heritage Designation" plaques on the building facades. Seems to me they would be better off taking those off, since it accomplishes nothing except to enflame HT types to have to see those for years on the side of bombed out shells!!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Oh, they don't need any reason to intervene. I'm guessing this one will be obstructed by a mix of NIMBY and Heritage Trust. I can't see the Just-us Coffee people down the street being development friendly.

22 stories would be perfectly acceptable for this site. I hope it only gets reduced to 17-19. (Which I assume it will.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Indeed. On a related note, I was at Baton Rouge on Saturday night before the AGNS event... as I walked past the wreck that is the Waterside and noticed that they still have the "Heritage Designation" plaques on the building facades. Seems to me they would be better off taking those off, since it accomplishes nothing except to enflame HT types to have to see those for years on the side of bombed out shells!!

What a dysfunctional city!

[JET]

Carlton St is a registered Victorian Streetscape. I wonder if anyone will take pause to consider that.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Indeed. On a related note, I was at Baton Rouge on Saturday night before the AGNS event... as I walked past the wreck that is the Waterside and noticed that they still have the "Heritage Designation" plaques on the building facades. Seems to me they would be better off taking those off, since it accomplishes nothing except to enflame HT types to have to see those for years on the side of bombed out shells!!

McCrae should be forced to clean up the site while he tries to make up his mind what to do with this unsightly bombed out mess. The mess on the site shows his lack of respect for this important site comprised of registered heritage shells.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

McCrae should be forced to clean up the site while he tries to make up his mind what to do with this unsightly bombed out mess. The mess on the site shows his lack of respect for this important site comprised of registered heritage shells.

I do think there's something seriously messed up with this situation, where heritage properties are easily demolished and then left empty for years with no repercussions. I am worried about projects like the Roy Building or Discovery Centre. What assurances are there that we won't see more bombed out holes?

Perhaps developers should have to prove they have financing before beginning work, or maybe they should face stiff fines for empty sites. If they leave unsightly properties untouched for a long enough period they should forfeit the site to the city, which should then look for bidders to develop (with stipulations similar to what we see with the Clyde lots).

Hopefully something will change soon and there will be a tenant for Waterside. If not I hope they convert to residential or something similar.

[fenwick16]

If the municipality wants the Waterside project to proceed with the heritage buildings restored then they could make a commitment to rent space in the restored buildings. Possibly work out a deal so that the 9 storey new addition won't proceed.

The municipality doesn't have a great record for restoration work - they are in the process of tearing down the Wanderers Grounds clubhouse which they registered as a heritage property and then de-registered once they knew how much it would cost to restore. When it comes to the Waterside, there has been no co-operation from the municipality. Ben McCrea has done more for heritage restoration in Halifax than any other developer that I have heard of. Now it is time for the HRM and province to step forward and provide money for restoration of the Waterside instead of depending on a private developer to provide that service.

[worldlyhaligonian]

To be honest, I am in favour of just restoring these buildings at this point.

a) It will mean that tennants that might have moved in here will look at one of the bigger developments.

b) I'm not a huge fan of the proposal... its kind of weird to not have a coherent roofline in a heritage building with an offices build on top of it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by JET

Carlton St is a registered Victorian Streetscape. I wonder if anyone will take pause to consider that.

I thought this lot was going to front onto SGR?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I thought this lot was going to front onto SGR?

It is. At least, that's what I understand from the reporting in the press. Its proximity to Registered Heritage will likely require some sort of report from staff and a trip the the Heritage Advisory Committee for recommendation to Council.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

I do think there's something seriously messed up with this situation, where heritage properties are easily demolished and then left empty for years with no repercussions. I am worried about projects like the Roy Building or Discovery Centre. What assurances are there that we won't see more bombed out holes?

Perhaps developers should have to prove they have financing before beginning work, or maybe they should face stiff fines for empty sites. If they leave unsightly properties untouched for a long enough period they should forfeit the site to the city, which should then look for bidders to develop (with stipulations similar to what we see with the Clyde lots).

Hopefully something will change soon and there will be a tenant for Waterside. If not I hope they convert to residential or something similar.

Hopefully this site will be used to set new standards. There should be a performance bond required for this type of development. 5% of the development sounds good. So this development is in the $30 million range and 5% would be $1.5 million for the bond. If the work does not proceed according to schedule or is not in accordance with the DA then the bond is forfeited. There should at least be an unsightly premises charge slapped on Armour.

I really hope the province/city buys this site and restores the REGISTERED HERITAGE BUILDINGS. It could be a Heritage Museum and a development office for downtown.

[fenwick16]

It is highly possible that the delays are because of the municipality. I have heard nothing in the media to indicate that the municipality has even issued the easement yet. Based on the situation with the Jazz condos, it could be that the HRM needs to start posting performance bonds.

The municipality and province don't contribute much to heritage restoration so the possibility of them buying these Waterside registered heritage buildings and restoring them is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. The HRM and province both know that there is no profit to be made in heritage restoration - that is why the HRM talks, and talks and talks about heritage preservation, but does little to nothing concrete (doesn't the demolition of the Wanderers Grounds clubhouse indicate that?).

[JET]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

It is. At least, that's what I understand from the reporting in the press. Its proximity to Registered Heritage will likely require some sort of report from staff and a trip the the Heritage Advisory Committee for recommendation to Council.

I'm not an ANS subscriber, so I have not read the info. When it was discussed awhile ago, there was mention of the dental offices on the corner, which would affect the streetscape. Can anyone copy the ANS info? thanks

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

Hopefully this site will be used to set new standards. There should be a performance bond required for this type of development. 5% of the development sounds good. So this development is in the $30 million range and 5% would be $1.5 million for the bond. If the work does not proceed according to schedule or is not in accordance with the DA then the bond is forfeited. There should at least be an unsightly premises charge slapped on Armour.

I really hope the province/city buys this site and restores the REGISTERED HERITAGE BUILDINGS. It could be a Heritage Museum and a development office for downtown.

This is part of the problem with a zoning system. Where things are 'as of right' most of the time; you can't apply such a condition to approving the development. You might be able to get away with it through a development agreement (which waterside was given) - but then you risk that the developer might walk away or try to have someone on council strike that requirement.

The land use system in most of the western provinces would label this type of development discretionary, so it would be approved by a Development Officer, but you could apply a variety of conditions on the permit (such as public realm improvements, landscaping letters of credit). But the catch is that any condition can be appealed; so there is no guarentee the condition would stand on appeal. I did a project where the landscaping required a letter of credit of 2.2 million $ (it was a huge project). The guy appealed the condition of approval for the letter of credit. He ended up having to pay an extra $100,000 on top of the 2.2, because the neighbours also appealed and the appeal board added a whole bunch of trees for privacy lol.

I think if staff were to take a report forward investigating such a bond; if council decided to go with it - then you wouldn't really see any opposition from developers, since council would've made the decision.

[wackypacky]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The area is outside of HbD; so the typical height precincts and zoning height regulations will apply. If memory serves me; the area is at 35' for the height precincts; which means that any building over that height must obtain a development agreement.

Certainly the area has context to support something that tall (with the adjacent high density residential - the tallest appears to be 21/22 stories) - my only concern would be the fact that there is a heritage streetfront along Carlton. That may cause our 'friends' at the Heritage Trust to intervene in someway.

You should be careful not to help the Heritage Trust come up with things to complain about. Im assuming theyre pretty basic people so they probably troll this website looking for reasons.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by wackypacky

You should be careful not to help the Heritage Trust come up with things to complain about. Im assuming theyre pretty basic people so they probably troll this website looking for reasons.

You are giving them too much credit...