[Halifax] 6067 Quinpool | ? m | ? fl | Proposed

[someone123]

Courtyard type spaces can be interesting if they're designed well. They can also be comfortable for a large part of the year if they provide shelter from wind and some covered areas. My condo faces a courtyard and I like it.

You need to sign up to see the survey questions but I'm hoping the planning department is setting itself up to receive incisive feedback rather than vague grumblings about traffic and shadows.

It's important to articulate the trade-offs between different types of development. If you ask people if they want more density they say no. If you ask about height they say no. Public space is a yes. Low taxes are a yes. But these all play off of each other. More density means lower taxes and better housing affordability. Taller buildings make it possible to create more public space. The city's planning department should be trying to find the sweet spot that balances these different areas and takes everybody's needs into account, not just current homeowners.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I was at the meeting last night and it did turn out about as I expected with some simmering anger and rudeness but thankfully there was no Q&A session so it was calmer then usual.

As for my opinion of the proposals;

- The grid has density going for it but it also feels crowded and is lacking green space.

- The plaza is the most likely scenario to be adopted but I do think they should vary the heights and designs to make it feel more varied.

- The square is hands down the worst scenario. It creates an undesirable central space that will not be used and the lack of variance in styles would create a boring block feeling.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

I bet you the "Square" gets built. Why? It's pretty obvious that the pro-NIMBY and anti-height HRM staffers are trying to spin this thing towards "The Square".

First, it doesn't have a tower. So, it's the one NIMBYs will prefer.

Two, notice, it's the one with the most street frontage. I bet you that is to appeal to local business groups, who would support more street level retail.


Also: Looking at "The Square" design reminded me of something. Where did I see a square / courtyard like that before?

Oh yeah! The Wire!



HRM is building the perfect place for Avon Barksdale's crew right off Quinpool Road.

In all seriousness, I honestly think all three of the design concepts are as usual boring, unimaginative, plain, meh.

Again, I will always maintain that the Halifax Central Library was some grand mistake, where somehow we ended up with a great building! It won't happen again soon.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I was at the meeting last night and it did turn out about as I expected with some simmering anger and rudeness but thankfully there was no Q&A session so it was calmer then usual.

As for my opinion of the proposals;

- The grid has density going for it but it also feels crowded and is lacking green space.

- The plaza is the most likely scenario to be adopted but I do think they should vary the heights and designs to make it feel more varied.

- The square is hands down the worst scenario. It creates an undesirable central space that will not be used and the lack of variance in styles would create a boring block feeling.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

I assume the density is similar in each scenario, its only about how it is distributed. I assume they have a certain number of units on site they need to achieve in order to hit a certain market price for HRM Real Estate. HRM Real Estate is running this show. They Grid is insane in Halifax. It looks like a wind tunnel maze. I don't care what you do, you aren't mitigating wind impacts from that. It also ignores any sort of service access to the buildings. Plaza is too fragmented and suburban. No way you can activate all those open spaces in any good way. I completely disagree - I'd say the square is the most interesting. It could be a good courtyard block which are done well in many places, are good in this type of climate, and which we have NONE of around here.

[Drybrain]

I think I like the Square best too, though one tower at the corner might be nice for some height variety.

What was the impetus for this consultation? I heard from people who went that it wasn't very well-executed, though the idea seems good: a bit of education on planning principles and design, and a chance to make the community feel included in the design process. So instead of responding to a development proposal, locals will have a chance, within reason, to participate in articulating what they'd like to see.

Yes, there's an opportunity for NIMBYism in this case, but by presenting three high-density concepts, it feels like the city is saying: "Something significant will be built here, no matter what. So what shape would you like to see it take?" Which is very fair, and has the potential to really mitigate NIMBYism and combativeness between residents and developers.

But is there any obligation for the feedback from the session to be built into site-specific planning and passed on to the eventual developer? Or is this just a feel-good exercise that won't ultimately have anything to do with what gets built?

[teddifax]

I would like to see the reverse of all these proposals. We are missing a chance to build a signature tower in the middle with low to mid-rise along the perimeter. I think this would make for a far more interesting set-up than the 3 proposals so far! I am thinking something with an interesting shape (anything but square or rectangular - maybe oval, conical or pyramid shaped, even a twisted form would be even better) and really tall to then allow for a lesser density in the other buildings, allowing for green space too!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I assume the density is similar in each scenario, its only about how it is distributed. I assume they have a certain number of units on site they need to achieve in order to hit a certain market price for HRM Real Estate. HRM Real Estate is running this show. They Grid is insane in Halifax. It looks like a wind tunnel maze. I don't care what you do, you aren't mitigating wind impacts from that. It also ignores any sort of service access to the buildings. Plaza is too fragmented and suburban. No way you can activate all those open spaces in any good way. I completely disagree - I'd say the square is the most interesting. It could be a good courtyard block which are done well in many places, are good in this type of climate, and which we have NONE of around here.

I can't emphasize how much I disagree.

How can you call the Plaza "suburban" when The Square looks like a row of cookie cutter 'burbplexes designed in the shape of a square? It reminds me of something I've seen in Brampton or Markham, or some other sprawl dystopia, let alone in downtown Halifax. No thanks.

You're worried about being unable to "activate" all the open spaces in the Plaza, but then are fine with the total waste of the space in middle of "The Square"? That courtyard with this design is entirely cut off from the street, and thus won't be used by any member of the public.

Also it is the worst among the three for densification. A wasted opportunity to bring some intense density to central location, that could really use it, especially to support small businesses nearby.

This is a main street near a major intersection. If we can't build dense here, without NIMBYs throwing chairs around at HRM feedback sessions, where then?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think I like the Square best too, though one tower at the corner might be nice for some height variety.

What was the impetus for this consultation? I heard from people who went that it wasn't very well-executed, though the idea seems good: a bit of education on planning principles and design, and a chance to make the community feel included in the design process. So instead of responding to a development proposal, locals will have a chance, within reason, to participate in articulating what they'd like to see.

Yes, there's an opportunity for NIMBYism in this case, but by presenting three high-density concepts, it feels like the city is saying: "Something significant will be built here, no matter what. So what shape would you like to see it take?" Which is very fair, and has the potential to really mitigate NIMBYism and combativeness between residents and developers.

But is there any obligation for the feedback from the session to be built into site-specific planning and passed on to the eventual developer? Or is this just a feel-good exercise that won't ultimately have anything to do with what gets built?

Dry, I don't think NIMBYs get angry over the existence of a proposed development. They get angry about height. They get angry about towers. They get angry about developments bringing new people and new population to their community -- towers usually mean young people, singles, professionals, etc, basically all the people NIMBYs dislike arriving. You might also include LGBT seniors to that list, given that NIMBYs blocked that north end proposal for a LGBT seniors home.

Asking "what will the development look like" is essentially the entire ball game when it comes to NIMBYs.

[hokus83]

personally I don't think there should be any gaps along Quinpool rd with this proposal

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

Courtyard type spaces can be interesting if they're designed well. They can also be comfortable for a large part of the year if they provide shelter from wind and some covered areas. My condo faces a courtyard and I like it.

You need to sign up to see the survey questions but I'm hoping the planning department is setting itself up to receive incisive feedback rather than vague grumblings about traffic and shadows.

It's important to articulate the trade-offs between different types of development. If you ask people if they want more density they say no. If you ask about height they say no. Public space is a yes. Low taxes are a yes. But these all play off of each other. More density means lower taxes and better housing affordability. Taller buildings make it possible to create more public space. The city's planning department should be trying to find the sweet spot that balances these different areas and takes everybody's needs into account, not just current homeowners.

https://www.halifax.ca/property/BCMP...MasterPlan.pdf

I'm reminded of the Bloomfield master plan. The appendices show some options, many include coutyard, and a mix of buildings, including some height/density; which also involves 'human scale' and height/density together (pg 162).
Could be a good model for Quinpool.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by JET

https://www.halifax.ca/property/BCMP...MasterPlan.pdf

I'm reminded of the Bloomfield master plan. The appendices show some options, many include coutyard, and a mix of buildings, including some height/density; which also involves 'human scale' and height/density together (pg 162).
Could be a good model for Quinpool.

you mean that thing that isn't happening anymore

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by hokus83

you mean that thing that isn't happening anymore

Well, the Province took it over, went thru a bunch of CEOs for the body that was supposed to be doing it, and then all went quiet. I dunno what's happening there now.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I would like to see the reverse of all these proposals. We are missing a chance to build a signature tower in the middle with low to mid-rise along the perimeter. I think this would make for a far more interesting set-up than the 3 proposals so far! I am thinking something with an interesting shape (anything but square or rectangular - maybe oval, conical or pyramid shaped, even a twisted form would be even better) and really tall to then allow for a lesser density in the other buildings, allowing for green space too!

What you describe is exactly what I expected. I am surprised the 3 concepts are all pretty awful.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, the Province took it over, went thru a bunch of CEOs for the body that was supposed to be doing it, and then all went quiet. I dunno what's happening there now.

Classic. Which is why, once again, HRM was totally and completely incompetent in awarding it to the Provincial Government Bid, given the possibility government changes (as it did) and thus the committed funds dry up (probably).

Absolutely idiotic, especially, if I recall, the NS Gov's bid was the worst on all other counts (design, creativity, imagination, conformity to proposal requirements) and won basically on financial backing -- the Government.

If the Province isn't moving forward, announce that you're withdrawing the contract award. Re-issue a new one, and hope that private developers who got screwed the first time, will spend the time and money to try again.

This stuff is just vintage HRM planning. Honestly, I wonder if it's the Three Stooges running things over there. Astounding they managed to screw this up after years of careful planning by the local community group (Imagine Bloomfield) with far fewer resources.

[teddifax]

This could turn out just as bad as the previous development next door. The original proposal which was shot down callled for 4, 40 storey towers on each corner with I believe retail and office components below and a huge green space on the roof on the low rise portion. Instead they built that monstrosity that is Quinpool Centre and just like Scotia Square with very little streetscape commercial sites. Any new development anywhere has to be welcoming from the street as well as above. Why can't this city get this right. I get so frustrated with the way things are done here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I would like to see the reverse of all these proposals. We are missing a chance to build a signature tower in the middle with low to mid-rise along the perimeter. I think this would make for a far more interesting set-up than the 3 proposals so far! I am thinking something with an interesting shape (anything but square or rectangular - maybe oval, conical or pyramid shaped, even a twisted form would be even better) and really tall to then allow for a lesser density in the other buildings, allowing for green space too!

I actually like this proposal better as well. Honestly, I don't see why height should be an issue here, with Quingate's 11 or 12 storeys right next door. This proposal also has the potential to allow a good strip of retail along the Quinpool side, which is exactly what that area needs, given the closed-off feel of that stretch of mall next to Quingate tower.

A significant tower with a unique design (not rectangular as you mention), would really spiff up the area, IMHO. If the two Robie proposals go through, this would be a huge boost to the area.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by teddifax

This could turn out just as bad as the previous development next door. The original proposal which was shot down callled for 4, 40 storey towers on each corner with I believe

When was that? I don't remember...In any case, is there any real chance that would have been built? The pace of multi-unit construction in the city centre is already WAY in excess of new household formation and population growth, and is almost certain to slow substantially in the next couple of years. (Of course, real-estate sales and growth aren't directly correlated, but they're certainly related, especially in a city like Halifax which doesn't have a big issue with investor-owners and flipping.) 160 storeys of new residential in one location would take AGES to fill up. I remember skepticism over the Mirvish Gehry project in Toronto, which, as originally proposed, would have been three towers adding a total of 240 storeys to one block. It was scaled back to two towers because it was considered overly dense. Even at two towers, there's a lot of skepticism that it will actually be viable in the market.

I think too many people on this forum tend to assume that we don't have more tall buidlings due to NIMBYism, but I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that as a city of 420,000 people with modest population growth, there isn't DEMAND for loads of huge towers all over.

In fact, if you compare us to any other Canadian city under a million, I bet we have the most towers under construction right now. We're doing fine, tower-wise. Not every opportunity site in the city needs to have the biggest tower possible on it.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think too many people on this forum tend to assume that we don't have more tall buidlings due to NIMBYism, but I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that as a city of 420,000 people with modest population growth, there isn't DEMAND for loads of huge towers all over.

In fact, if you compare us to any other Canadian city under a million, I bet we have the most towers under construction right now. We're doing fine, tower-wise. Not every opportunity site in the city needs to have the biggest tower possible on it.

Thank you.

People don't seem to recognize just how small, and just how isolated from other major centres, we are. Even the 420,000 figure is bloated by about 120,000 rural dwellers in far flung parts of the HRM. We are really an urban centre of about 300,000, with no other major population centres for hundreds, even thousands of kilometres around.

I saw comments in the Amusement Park thread comparing us to Cleveland, and there is just no comparison at all, ever, to a city of 1 million in the midst of one of the most densely populated parts of the continent.

There is no market here for a significant number of large skyscrapers.

And I agree, Halifax is already rather well stocked with tall-ish buildings for such a small city. Few others compare.

That's not to say I don't want to see more. I want to see downtown fill up with 25 story buildings - something Vancouver-ish - but with lots of commercial and cultural activity at street level so it doesn't become an office-worker wasteland that drains out after 5 pm.

[someone123]

The Halifax CMA number of 420,000 isn't inflated compared to other CMAs in Canada. It is based on the same rules that are applied everywhere else. US metro definitions are actually more generous.

If you look at an old HRM district map, you'll see that the eastern 2/3 of the municipality's land mass was in district 1. There were 23 districts. There are about 20,000 far-flung residents, not 120,000, and most of them commute into the city to work. If they didn't they wouldn't be considered a part of the metropolitan area.

I agree that Halifax is a small city, but the idea that it is made up of a large percentage of rural residents is incorrect.

[q12]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Halifax CMA number of 420,000 isn't inflated compared to other CMAs in Canada. It is based on the same rules that are applied everywhere else. US metro definitions are actually more generous.

If you look at an old HRM district map, you'll see that the eastern 2/3 of the municipality's land mass was in district 1. There were 23 districts. There are about 20,000 far-flung residents, not 120,000, and most of them commute into the city to work. If they didn't they wouldn't be considered a part of the metropolitan area.

I agree that Halifax is a small city, but the idea that it is made up of a large percentage of rural residents is incorrect.

I agree, the majority of Halifax's 420,000 residents are within a relatively short drive from Downtown. We also have a significant seasonal student population that mostly live in the core of the city.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Halifax CMA number of 420,000 isn't inflated compared to other CMAs in Canada. It is based on the same rules that are applied everywhere else. US metro definitions are actually more generous.

If you look at an old HRM district map, you'll see that the eastern 2/3 of the municipality's land mass was in district 1. There were 23 districts. There are about 20,000 far-flung residents, not 120,000, and most of them commute into the city to work. If they didn't they wouldn't be considered a part of the metropolitan area.

I agree that Halifax is a small city, but the idea that it is made up of a large percentage of rural residents is incorrect.

I would agree with that, but it seems unfortunate that the IDEA of "rural Halifax" (an oxymoron, as far as I'm concerned) occupies so much of our civic mental space. And it's unfortuate that while not that many people live out in the boonies, the boonies still occupy an absurd land area, such that our civic density is technically a measly 71 per sq. km.

Which is why we fare so poorly on this little infographic on Canadian urban density. This thing compares the incomparable: from cities that occupy a fraction of their CMA (Vancouver and Toronto), to cities which occupy most of their CMA (prairie cities) to cities which occupy all of their CMA plus vast hinterlands (Halifax).