United Gulf towers | ~90m | 27 fl | Approved - Page 13

worldlyhaligonian · #**241** Posted **May 15, 2011, 6:27 PM**

I will have more confidence when I see a crane up for Waterton II... Hasn't Saberi stated that he won't be proceeding with the downtown project until the second phase of the Waterton is complete? I think somebody stated it will start in July?

Haliwood - Do you know anything about whats going on with Waterton II?

Haliwood · #**242** Posted **May 16, 2011, 12:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I will have more confidence when I see a crane up for Waterton II... Hasn't Saberi stated that he won't be proceeding with the downtown project until the second phase of the Waterton is complete? I think somebody stated it will start in July?

Haliwood - Do you know anything about whats going on with Waterton II?

Hey,

I haven't talked to him about the Waterton, so I'm really not sure. I know that the new design for Texpark is very serious, and that's his biggest fish to fry currently. He's hired two new architects from New York for it.

I can't disclose the new proposed height, we'll see in 3 months. But it is much, much higher than the current 27f.

I'm just telling you guys what I know.

sdm · #**243** Posted **May 16, 2011, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliwood

Hey,

I haven't talked to him about the Waterton, so I'm really not sure. I know that the new design for Texpark is very serious, and that's his biggest fish to fry currently. He's hired two new architects from New York for it.

I can't disclose the new proposed height, we'll see in 3 months. But it is much, much higher than the current 27f.

I'm just telling you guys what I know.

I am curious in that how can it be taller then what is approved now?

Jonovision · #**244** Posted **May 16, 2011, 1:31 PM**

Higher? But the previous design was up to or very close to the height of the ramparts. They might be able to squeeze it up to 30 floors. But there is no way it could go beyond those heights.

Haliwood · #**245** Posted **May 16, 2011, 1:37 PM**

He's basically making a push to change things in Halifax. If it gets approved, not only will it revolutionize the skyline, but will also lead to more developments that will abolish the height restriction once and for all in our backwards city.

It's going to be difficult though, but he's confident. So I have a feeling he has some backing of some sort that will push the development along.

Money talks.

-Harlington- · #**246** Posted **May 16, 2011, 1:58 PM**

if its going to be the tallest east of montreal then its going to have to be taller than 126 m

as cool as it would be to have that, i agree that it would be hard to achieve

Empire · #**247** Posted **May 16, 2011, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliwood

He's basically making a push to change things in Halifax. If it gets approved, not only will it revolutionize the skyline, but will also lead to more developments that will abolish the height restriction once and for all in our backwards city.

It's going to be difficult though, but he's confident. So I have a feeling he has some backing of some sort that will push the development along.

Money talks.

It's too bad UG now has a credibility issue to deal with. After putting everyone through the Twisted Sisters debate and being silent on the issue for 4 years there will be a lot of explaining to do.

Freedom Tower maybe?

Haliguy · #**248** Posted **May 16, 2011, 2:59 PM**

Interesting...would be cool if he could do that. However I'm not totally against the rampart view bylaw which does allow for buildings 20 - 30 stories. A lot of other cities like Ottawa have the same sort of rules where no buildinig can be higher than the Piece tower on the Parliament building.

DigitalNinja · #**249** Posted **May 16, 2011, 3:40 PM**

I want to see the renders before I pass any judgment...

Haliwood · #**250** Posted **May 16, 2011, 4:31 PM**

[QUOTE=-Harlington-;5279216]if its going to be the tallest east of montreal then its going to have to be taller than 126 m
/QUOTE]

It will.

But out of curiosity, what other buildings are higher than 100m?

Haliguy · #**251** Posted **May 16, 2011, 6:13 PM**

[QUOTE=Haliwood;5279394]

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

if its going to be the tallest east of montreal then its going to have to be taller than 126 m
/QUOTE]

It will.

But out of curiosity, what other buildings are higher than 100m?

Quebec City?

-Harlington- · #**252** Posted **May 16, 2011, 6:41 PM**

yes, quebec city has two buildings 100 m or more

but those would be the only ones east of montreal if you dont count bridges and radio towers.

So it would have to be above 126 for that

worldlyhaligonian · #**253** Posted **May 16, 2011, 7:28 PM**

I would love to see something taller, but getting it through council would be pointless given the previous time investment to have the original proposal approved.

The fenwick comparisons would start coming out of the woodwork.

someone123 · #**254** Posted **May 16, 2011, 7:46 PM**

I think the ramparts bylaw is silly but that doesn't change the fact that it will probably make it impossible to go above 83 m or so.

I also think the Peace Tower requirements in Ottawa were very ill-conceived. It sounds nice on paper (like the ramparts bylaw) to make sure that the Peace Tower is the tallest building. In practice, however, you can hardly see the tower from anywhere. To get a good result they would have had to protect particular sight lines or severely limit heights nearby.

The best bylaws are very specific, practical, and produce an obvious, worthwhile result. The ramparts bylaw has none of these characteristics.

fenwick16 · #**255** Posted **May 16, 2011, 10:49 PM**

The Salter Street proposal had a 45 storey observation tower included (~ 450 feet, 137 meter). If my memory serves me correctly, Centennial Properties was asked to remove it from the proposal before it even went to Council for a vote.

I don't think anyone will change the ramparts maximum height rule.

Haliwood · #**256** Posted **May 16, 2011, 11:54 PM**

Regardless, even what I said was in essence unnecessary and uncertain, as nothing is official, and there's been no official talk of it. Nothing is for sure, and it's best not to expect anything at this point.

FuzzyWuz · #**257** Posted **May 17, 2011, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't think anyone will change the ramparts maximum height rule.

Neither do I. It makes me wonder if Mr. Saberi has stopped being serious altogether. You can't just throw money at the situation and assume it will make a big change. Even those councillors and opposers we think are being idiotic have integrity in their idiocy.

fenwick16 · #**258** Posted **May 17, 2011, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliwood

Regardless, even what I said was in essence unnecessary and uncertain, as nothing is official, and there's been no official talk of it. Nothing is for sure, and it's best not to expect anything at this point.

I am just hopeful of an extraordinary proposal that is between 20 - 27 storeys. If that is what is meant by "something absolutely unheard of in Halifax" then I am completely in favour.

Haliwood · #**259** Posted **May 17, 2011, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuzzyWuz

Neither do I. It makes me wonder if Mr. Saberi has stopped being serious altogether. You can't just throw money at the situation and assume it will make a big change. Even those councillors and opposers we think are being idiotic have integrity in their idiocy.

Come on. Let's just see what happens.

someone123 · #**260** Posted **May 17, 2011, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliwood

Come on. Let's just see what happens.

Problem is that back in 2004 everybody was in "wait and see" mode. Now it's 2011... so far all we've seen is an empty lot.