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

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

So you are combining several agglomerations into a region that stretches hundreds of miles.

Yup. Go hundreds of miles from Halifax, and you drive through forest, for the most part.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by someone123

I thought we were just talking about the idea that people living in the outer parts of HRM don't matter to this discussion and should be discounted. But now people living 5 hours away in a different country do apparently have an impact on other cities.

It all seems tenuously related to why Halifax can/can't or should/shouldn't have 40 storey buildings

*sigh*

Niagara Falls is in the middle of tens of thousands of square kms of other medium and big cities, and receives 12 million visitors per year.

Halifax is in the middle of tens of thousands of square kms of forest with a few scattered small towns. All of Nova Scotia receives fewer than 2 million visitors per year.

If you can't see the difference in terms of impact on economies, markets, etc., (and, yes, likelihood of tall hotels being built)...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Niagara Falls is in the middle of tens of thousands of square miles of other medium and big cities.

And it's one of the biggest tourist destinations in North America, of course.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

This has nothing to do with my preferences, or any desire to see Halifax stay a small town. I have never once said I oppose any development. You're making that up as an ad hominem - if you make me out to be a "NIMBY" then my opinion doesn't count, right? It's really no different from calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll. It's bad faith, to be blunt. So please keep the personal attacks out of it.

As drybrain keeps pointing out, being realistic about what is likely here is not the same as being opposed to big ideas and is not the same as being a NIMBY.

It's reality.

40 story towers aren't "rare" in cities of Halifax's size and isolation - they're non-existent. If there was a market, developers would decide and build them - as you just said yourself. The fact that developers are not doing so it speaks for itself. When one does, I'll be the first one cheering the project on.

I would love to see a few tall slim buildings approaching that size in Halifax - but I think it's extremely unrealistic to expect it to happen (especially in the Quinpool area, where this all started) because it hasn't happened anywhere else like Halifax, ever. That's an "is", not an "ought".

I do think it's sad that there is a certain element in Halifax that constantly bemoans the city as "behind the times" and a "backwater" etc. because of these realities, when actually Halifax is doing quite well. That negativity grates on me, and that's what I react to and occasionally pipe up and say, "hey, you know, we're not as big a city as you think, and we're really doing pretty well for our size."

I wasn't painting you as a NIMBY, just pointing out you're using the sort of discredited NIMBY arguments that they often wield. Just because you're not a NIMBY doesn't make those same arguments any more persuasive.

Again, you're back to the is/ought fallacies, banging on about "realities", about how it "is" the case about skyscrapers in places like Halifax "don't exist".

Then someone points out you have your facts wrong, and that cities the size of Halifax do, and then you come up with another excuse that it's an exception.

I'm sure if we went about to find more "existing" examples of your "non-existing" towers, you'll point to uber-super-mega-global regions or maybe continental drift since the Triassic Era as to why Halifax is really small and isolated and different and so that's the "reality" and so no high towers.

You know, I wouldn't consider most cities in Canada necessarily "victories" of urban planning. Even less so in the United States. There are instances of success in Canada, but most are car-centered and have terrible problems with congestion and sprawl, that includes all the "big" cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa, where you'd apparently be fine with plenty skyscrapers.

So, maybe the "norm"-- which you seem to treat like some immutable Law of Nature-- of only building skyscrapers in larger cities is a mistake?

Maybe there would be less sprawl, less congestion, less problems, if we bucked the norm, and did things differently?

I'm not saying that's accurate, or right, but simply because there are norms, doesn't mean they're correct. It's also not quite in keeping with the latest research on uber-super-mega-global regions, but maybe give it a thought.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

As drybrain keeps pointing out, being realistic about what is likely here is not the same as being opposed to big ideas and is not the same as being a NIMBY.

It's reality

[portapetey]

You're making this very personal, and adding nothing constructive. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're at the end of your "argument".

I *is* right. You *ought* to give it up. :-D

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Courtyard style development is fantastic in cities like Barcelona:


But this is certainly not going to achieve that effect!

Different type of 'square'. Those courtyards are intended to be walled areas for the use of the residents, not public spaces. So they achieve the intended effect. This is mean to be a public space, so the design has the opposite effect.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

You're making this very personal, and adding nothing constructive. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're at the end of your "argument".

I *is* right. You *ought* to give it up. :-D

Riiiiight.

Also, sorry if you felt any of this was personal. It wasn't. I posted a Tyrion Lannister gif, for crying out loud.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Different type of 'square'. Those courtyards are intended to be walled areas for the use of the residents, not public spaces. So they achieve the intended effect. This is mean to be a public space, so the design has the opposite effect.

Agreed. I do like the idea of courtyards for parking behind street-front stores, etc. as it deals with the common North American problem of strip-malls behind parking lots (ugh). But in this context, with the courtyard meant to be green-space, it doesn't make much sense.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Riiiiight.

Also, sorry if you felt any of this was personal. It wasn't. I posted a Tyrion Lannister gif, for crying out loud.

I do love me some Tyrion. He could build a 40 story castle where ever he damned well pleases.

[Colin May]

The main impediment to 40 storeys is cost and another is risk/reward, your competitors will have 15-20 storey developments completed and occupied before you. They will have the same features at a lower price or offer better/bigger units for the same price.
Mayor Savage on his monthly CBC phone in, only one caller a few weeks ago, said he didn't know who was going to buy all the units but he was happy to see them being built.

[Nouvellecosse]

After looking at the 3 designs and walking by there tonight I've decided "The Square" is definitely the best but I don't particularly like any of them. If The square just had the first floor low level openings and a totally unbroken street wall then I'd like it. A single really large building would be very cool.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Is this a novel new way for NIMBYs to block proposals?

I think so... its a way to already have the cards stacked against any development that doesn't conform with the NIMBY wishes.

[rkannegi]

How about building something like Masdar City near Abu Dhabi, UAE? Have vehicular access to all buildings via an underground level under the block.

Earth 2050 - HD Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKbZxKZJM_4

zip forward to 29:11 and watch until the end.

Regards,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Hali87]

Source


Source


Source


Sourcep


Source


Source


Source

[Dmajackson]

Public Open House #2 was held tonight. The potential site-specific land-use requirements were introduced and discussed by a decent crowd (not the 150 from July but still a good size). The details will be posted online but some key take aways;

- The "Grid" idea was shot down by most. The "Plaza" was favoured.
- Maximum 50% lot coverage
- Public open space in center with allowance for temporary commercial uses (ie food trucks, market)
- 10m wide pedestrian corridors from Quingate - Windsor and New Street - Quinpool*
- 16.5m streetwall along Quinpool
- Retail along Quinpool must be small-scale (12m wide units).
- 75% of ground-floor residential units along Windsor must be townhouses (individual access)**
- 3.32 F.A.R. (equals maximum of 47'000 sq m)
- Minimum 1/4 to 1/3 of units must be "family"


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

* I noted that the North-South connection should have it's northern access close to New Street & Windsor to make the walk through the block more convenient and highly-used heading towards the Quinpool Road commercial district.

** I noted that "New Street" should also be mostly ground-floor townhouses and that townhouses can be great when used as a base in high-rise residential buildings.

[Keith P.]

I can't help but get the feeling this is going to be a disaster.

[gohaligo]

I have a bad feeling about this process.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I can't help but get the feeling this is going to be a disaster.

I agree. Not a fan so far.

[someone123]

I wonder if the people who are consulted could do a good job of predicting which developments they would or wouldn't actually like and which ones would be successful (from the point of view of attracting businesses, residents, foot traffic, etc.).

I've often thought that these processes don't capture trade-offs very well. It is fine to talk about human scale and most people will ask for larger setbacks and lower densities but there is a cost to all of that, in terms of what it will do to the commercial area nearby and how likely a developer is to come forward and build a high-quality development to those specifications. Sometimes I bet people would be willing to accept higher density in exchange for more amenities and nicer buildings but that isn't a part of the process when you're just looking at a map with boxes on it and picking the ones with what you think are the most favourable numbers.