General Updates and News - Page 161

halifaxboyns · #**3201** Posted **Jan 4, 2012, 9:37 PM**

I joined the facebook group mentioned earlier, I would encourage others do so as well.
I agree with someone123 - the ramparts bylaw really doesn't mean anything considering the stand outs for maritime centre and fenwick. What does it really accomplish?

I agree the flaw with HRM by design is the fact that it didn't take into account existing development and I think if anything were to happen to an existing high rise and then they came back and found out they couldn't rebuild as it was (they would be lower) you would see a few lawsuits happen.

Hopefully someone will pick up on that and see the plan changed in the next few years.

someone123 · #**3202** Posted **Jan 4, 2012, 10:27 PM**

I believe that the view from within the Citadel courtyard is used as a pretext for imposing far-reaching height restrictions on the downtown area. In other words, nobody really cares that much about the courtyard. They just don't want highrise buildings, and the ramparts rules are one way to make height restrictions seem legitimate.

Some anti-development speakers in city hearings (I am probably thinking of the Paceys, but I don't remember clearly) have stated flatly that allowing new highrises results in demolition of heritage buildings, because they think there is more incentive to demolish if something taller can be built. I think this economic argument is wrong (new investment including highrise construction can be channeled into heritage preservation, but if there's no money there's nothing but slow decline), but it demonstrates that really they do not want highrises to be built anywhere downtown. It is not about shadows or ramparts, or coming up with a reasonable solution that minimizes the real impact of new buildings.

The goal is simply to minimize the amount of new construction downtown. This is what has created the "us vs. them", "heritage vs. development" attitude that has been so harmful in Halifax. It's time for the city to leave this attitude in the past.

alps · #**3203** Posted **Jan 4, 2012, 11:27 PM**

A couple episodes of a homebuying show called "Urban Suburban" that features Halifax are airing tonight on HGTV.

The first episode, at 9:00pm AST, is called "West End vs. Bedford," and the second at 9:30 is "Dartmouth vs. Tantallon."

I think the premise of the show is that the buyers are trying to decide between purchasing in the city or suburbs, and they tour some homes in each area.

Dmajackson · #**3204** Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alps

The first episode, at 9:00pm AST, is called "West End vs. Bedford," and the second at 9:30 is "Dartmouth vs. Tantallon."

Damn they should of contacted me. I'm a Bedfordian living in the West-End (well politically at least).

someone123 · #**3205** Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 3:40 AM**

There was a bit of news tonight in ANS about $6M renos planned for the Radisson on Hollis Street. The rooms will be overhauled, there will be a new lobby, and there will be new windows. Not sure if the cladding will change, but I'd guess that it will at least be cleaned up. They also plan on adding a multi-level mechanical parking structure in the space between the hotel and the office building next door along Bedford Row -- kind of interesting, and something you see in Manhattan.

One of the top sites downtown I'd like to see developed is the big empty lot across Sackville Street that surrounds the Bank of Canada and Ralston buildings. Right now that site forms a giant belt of underused land stretching along Sackville Street to the waterfront.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drgnmastr/467323457/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Empire · #**3206** Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 5:23 AM**

I hope that when HRMxD does the plan for the Robie-Young area heights are viewed differently than with the downtown plan. I think generous density bonusing should be part of the plan and that there should be a number of areas designated as "future land use". These areas would have a minimum height allowance of the adjacent properties but no specified maximum height. A developer could propose what they feel the market could sustain and go through a more detailed public hearing type process if they exceed the surrounding height limits.

The lack of single family housing in the Kempt - Young area makes it a natural for density. The area needs a significant hotel and a couple of parks like Victoria Park and Cornwallis park to get the ball rolling.

-Harlington- · #**3207** Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 5:39 PM**

And maybe the Hydrostone area can become more of an attraction, recent development is already adding more people and shops there so maybe its time the area gets a hotel or something, sort of a ''downtown north end''

If Agricola ever becomes a corridor like many have mentioned here and Gottingen densifys a little more it would be a nice transition into downtown .

halifaxboyns · #**3208** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:41 PM**

I would have to agree, I see the area (which I like to call the Forum lands because it really gives you a good geographic location) as a huge opportunity and the existing condos on Gladstone set a very good context.

If anything, I wouldn't set a maximum height for this area. I would set a minimum height at about 10 stories and then in order to go higher, you have to undertake a number of bonuses but why cap the height? This spot is ideal as there would be very little in terms of opposition. I'm also found myself moving away from my previous position on Kempt Road staying a commercial corridor - I'd be willing to set the commercial go and become mixed use.

The Hydrostone you will see more opposition, but I think the compromise could be something along this line: development centred more around Agricola could be up to the 15 storey range, while stuff closer to the Hydrostone park would be around 10. This way, you could create a well framed commercial street (with a possible streetcar?) on Agricola and then smaller buildings interior. That or you just go with a minimum height (say 7 stories) and then bonus up to the high teens. Eitherway is fine with me...

halifaxboyns · #**3209** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 6:04 PM**

I may have posted this before, but I started watching it again last night and I think the comments that Christopher Hume makes are very important in light of the Regional Centre Plan and just common sense in general.

Link

It really shows that despite the sprawl development HRM has been focused on, we still have a good backbone for the future. Personally, if HRM had some money as part of the regional centre plan, it would be fantastic to have Mr. Hume come and speak about his thoughts on HRM.

halifaxboyns · #**3210** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 6:24 PM**

A very interesting DA initiation report for the corner site at Vernon and Quinpool. Looks like we could be seeing the start of more development interest on Quinpool - about time.

Dmajackson · #**3211** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 6:57 PM**

^You missed the Bay's redevelopment report on the Council agenda as well.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/120110ca1114.pdf

Is it just me or are blue glass office buildings slowly taking over the Peninsula?

someone123 · #**3212** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

A very interesting DA initiation report for the corner site at Vernon and Quinpool. Looks like we could be seeing the start of more development interest on Quinpool - about time.

I read about this and it is a great proposal. A few buildings have gone up on Quinpool over the past few years but they've been around 3-4 floors, which is a waste of prime land and doesn't look very good on such a wide street.

This is not a landmark proposal but it's the sort of thing you could imagine being repeated a dozen times over on Quinpool. If that were to happen the street would be much more successful but there would be a minimal impact on nearby residential areas.

ewjonsson · #**3213** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 12:03 AM**

I was reading that report, and I was wondering about one thing they mention in the workshop outcomes section. It says, "Explore the possibility of extending the Chebucto lane south of Quinpool Rd.". Does anybody know what this means? I thought it was kind of randomly inserted into the guidelines. This seems odd to me, because for Chebucto lane to even get to Quinpool would require the demolition of at least one house, one apartment building and then through Quinpool shopping centre.

Keith P. · #**3214** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 12:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^You missed the Bay's redevelopment report on the Council agenda as well.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/120110ca1114.pdf

Is it just me or are blue glass office buildings slowly taking over the Peninsula?

It is unfortunate that the existing mold- or moss- or fungus-covered precast on the existing building is to remain. That structure was ugly the day it opened and only got worse - it is a classic example of a building that never should have been built in its current form.

RyeJay · #**3215** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Is it just me or are blue glass office buildings slowly taking over the Peninsula?

I rather blue glass over turquois.

RyeJay · #**3216** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 4:30 AM**

I look forward to this redevelopment's impact on the lil' armdale skyline.

alps · #**3217** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:46 AM**

That Quinpool project looks great! I'm surprised nothing similar has ever been proposed for the former Esso site (Quinpool & Harvard).

someone123 · #**3218** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 7:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alps

That Quinpool project looks great! I'm surprised nothing similar has ever been proposed for the former Esso site (Quinpool & Harvard).

I've wondered about that site for a long time. My supposition was always that it was contaminated.

Waye Mason · #**3219** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 12:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I've wondered about that site for a long time. My supposition was always that it was contaminated.

Everything's contaminated on the peninsula. You just have to work around it. I know from when I was up on Gottingen that all the buildings there had buried oil tanks (that would leak), or small scale industrial (like the drycleaners, or photolabs, or printers, that would have spills ). Or just the fact that for 150 years coal ash was scattered out the back door as "fertilizer" or whatever and now most gardens have 700 to 1000 times the heavy metals in the soil that is allowable.

I know when they were doing the Brickyard on the old Alexandria school property that they found diesel in the soil, but it had come from up the hill somewhere, and it could have been from any one of a dozen old properties, including the then abandoned MET building.

On top of that you have to deal with run off from slate... pretty much I think developers need to plan as if every site on a major, older street has contamination of some significant kind... heh.

kph06 · #**3220** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 3:34 PM**

I think the problem with a lot of the old service station sites, the Quinpool one included, is that they are contaminated and owned by the oil company. The company would have to clean up the site before it is sold, and in many cases the cleanup costs would be more than the selling price, so it doesn't make economical sense for the company. Although with the recent sale of three Ultramar sites to Banc, hopefully this thinking has changed, or those were just cleaner sites.