HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


    Skye Halifax I in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 3:11 PM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 966
Maybe the will be shrinking it down to HRM by design height limits...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 5:09 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I think there are a few planners from HRM that post on here, they can correct me if I'm wrong: when I worked there as a tech, there was a typical clause in every development agreement that allowed for some limited variations to the plan without going back to council for an approval. However, it's been so long since I used HRM/Nova Scotia rules that I'm very rusty with DA interpretation.

So if I remember correctly; they could do things like change the layout of the floor and some minor changes to the building look and appearance; so long as it didn't make the building taller or change the overall density.

Building additional hotels at this point is probably not the best idea, given the current economy. I wouldn't want to speculate on the outcome of the convention centre and build a hotel assuming it would be built either. However, if the convention centre were a go and then the stadium went ahead (and a CFL team obtained); I would speculate there would be increased demand for hotels once they were both operating.

Unfortunately, that's in the future and very much still an unknown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 9:43 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdm View Post
Its an interesting article but i certainly see there is some questions that fall from it.

I didnt think one could alter plans for a building, unless they are to meet the building code, without going through the process again?
When projects hit the Development Agreement phase, they are rarely shovel ready. It doesn't make sense for a developer to pay an Architect and Consulting Engineers to put together Construction Documents for a project that isn't a sure thing yet. Instead, work is typically done to test the program areas and design constraints to see if something is workable.

Once a Development Agreement is reached, usually the project must then be developed to the point where it can be tendered and awarded.

What we've seen to-date is likely similar to what the end result will be (provided this goes ahead), but is not going to be exactly the same. Development Agreements usually allow for some variance from the drawings submitted, with the absolute requirements stated in the document itself (drawings are usually appended as illustrations of intent, but are often not legally binding)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2010, 9:03 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,629
CBC News ran a Pam Berman report tonight -- nothing new really, based on the soon-to-expire date for start of construction. However, it got turned into a platform for Phil Pacey to gloat; stated that buildings this tall cannot get financing, hence no tall buildings should be approved. Tag-teamed with Sloane and similar gloating -- remember, she opposed this development. Of course, nobody mentioned the Heritage Trust's delay tactics on this, dragging them to UARB, holding up the project by over a year. Shamefully bad reporting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2010, 9:22 PM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
CBC News ran a Pam Berman report tonight -- nothing new really, based on the soon-to-expire date for start of construction. However, it got turned into a platform for Phil Pacey to gloat; stated that buildings this tall cannot get financing, hence no tall buildings should be approved. Tag-teamed with Sloane and similar gloating -- remember, she opposed this development. Of course, nobody mentioned the Heritage Trust's delay tactics on this, dragging them to UARB, holding up the project by over a year. Shamefully bad reporting.
I wish I had heard it... pisses me off how one sided CBC1 and The Coast (in particular) have been about development issues. It is a sad state of affairs when The Chronically Horrible have the most balanced Op/Ed page!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 6:20 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,082
I read the article and whenever Saberi was quoted he came off very arrogant. Considering United Gulf's current issues and Greater Home's reputation I would say he's a little over confident. He must have lots of money in his coffers to support all the land he owns and the issues he comes across when developing it. I love this proposal, but from what I've seen in the field and in the papers with this group I am very cautious to get excited until I see foundations going in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 6:29 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
I read the article and whenever Saberi was quoted he came off very arrogant. Considering United Gulf's current issues and Greater Home's reputation I would say he's a little over confident. He must have lots of money in his coffers to support all the land he owns and the issues he comes across when developing it. I love this proposal, but from what I've seen in the field and in the papers with this group I am very cautious to get excited until I see foundations going in.
What has recently come up in Bedford has me questioning just how much money UG has left to spend. As part of the proposal for 827 Bedford Highway a sidewalk was requested by members of the public and the NWPAC. When asked about including one the landowner (UG) said they did not have enough money to install the necesairy infrastructure. This might just be a lie to avoid spending more money out of their pockets but if they really are low on funds it would be smart financially to sell of some land they own here in Bedford to fund the projects that are already approved (2 here in Bedford, and 2 in Halifax at least).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 6:32 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
I believe some developments have been modified in the past after getting their development agreement without going through the whole process again, but I have no idea what modifications are allowed.

I agree that it still seems a bit sketchy - he's been saying it will take about another year for three years now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2010, 1:45 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,930
Yeah, buildings like this would have been financed had the construction been held up for so long by the opponents until a recession hit.

Otherwise, as I understand the financing agreement would be a contract that couldn't be broken by either party.

Propaganda. I consider myself left wing, these folks are out to lunch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2010, 2:43 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
I did not see this story but United Gulf has other issues. Really the situation is somewhat complicated and it has nothing to do with how tall the buildings are. If it were impossible to finance tall buildings then there wouldn't be multiple highrises under construction in Halifax right now.

It's also worth noting that United Gulf can apply for an extension and it would very likely pass a full council vote that would likely not be subject to appeals. It's unclear what will happen with this project but the developers maintain that they want to move forward, and plenty of other projects in the city have been put on hold for many years before ultimately being built.

It would be interesting to get more real behind-the-scenes information about the developer (to know what work they have actually done for this project). Nicer renderings would be good as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 11:34 AM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., says there will be a development at the former Tex-Park site in downtown Halifax, it just won’t be the originally planned Twisted Sisters. (Ted Pritchard / Staff)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1208072.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 12:15 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Thanks for posting. It would be good to see it straightened out. I didn't really like the twisting aspect of the proposal and it would just add cost needlessly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 2:50 PM
ScovaNotian ScovaNotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 242
Wouldn't a change of plans invalidate the development agreement and make the lot fall under the HbD height restrictions?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 3:23 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Thanks for posting. It would be good to see it straightened out. I didn't really like the twisting aspect of the proposal and it would just add cost needlessly.
I think that was just a play on words for the title. I doubt that the twist is actually gone from the towers. I can't really understand how he will "knock our socks off" without having to change the development agreement, but I do like surprises!

Here is the full article.


Straightening out plan for Twisted Sisters
Developer ‘committed’ to downtown residential project
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Thu, Oct 21 - 4:53 AM


Navid Saberi, president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., says there will be a development at the former Tex-Park site in downtown Halifax, it just won’t be the originally planned Twisted Sisters. (Ted Pritchard / Staff)


Don’t count the Twisted Sisters project proposed for downtown Halifax out just yet, unless, that is, developer Navid Saberi gets a proposal worthy of The Godfather.

"I’m not going to sell it unless somebody gives me an offer that I can’t refuse," Saberi, the president of United Gulf Developments Ltd., said Wednesday.

The 27-storey twin tower slated for the old Tex-Park site on the corner of Hollis and Sackville streets was called into question last week when city staffers released a report indicating that the project had dragged on past the construction start date in the development agreement. But the report pointed out council could extend the deadline.

"We are going to do a project there, for sure," Saberi said.

"Instead of just going in and asking for an extension, we just want to come up with a better idea of how we’re going to do it and when we’re going to do it. And then we go and ask for that timeline."

The original design, first proposed more than five years ago, may need some tweaking, he said.

"What I’m going to do, it will, what’s the saying? Knock your socks off," Saberi said.

In April, he said construction would start next fall. On Wednesday, he was far more nebulous about the timeline.

"We have a few options that we are looking at. We haven’t decided which option we’re going to take yet."

He was equally vague about how much the project will cost.

"It’s around a couple of hundred million."

When asked if he is tempted to sell the lot, Saberi said: "You’d need to have deep pockets to buy that site. But we’re very committed. It’s one of the projects that actually we’re excited to do."

Saberi said his company is not entertaining a sale of the property.

"When you don’t want to sell something, you can’t put a price on it.

"We think it’s one of the best sites in Halifax."

He doesn’t believe Rank Inc.’s proposal to build a convention centre, hotel and office space on the former Chronicle Herald site will hurt the chance of success for United Gulf’s project, informally dubbed the Twisted Sisters for the shape of its glass and steel towers.

"My project is 70 per cent residential (condominiums) and 30 per cent hotel and retail. So what they do is offices and hotels, and really they have no effect on what we do."

He plans a 120-room boutique hotel in the project with a "very contemporary feel."

United Gulf is also planning to start construction next spring on its second phase of the $65-million Waterton condominium complex on Walter Havill Drive. The next 150 condominium units should be completed by the end of 2012, Saberi said.

The first tower is 70 per cent sold, he said. Saberi plans to start selling condominiums in the second tower at the same time he starts building it.

His company is working on two Hammonds Plains projects.

It is planning to build more than 300 homes and an equestrian centre at Voyageur Lakes.

"We have done about 100 of it already," he said, noting that the average home in the $130-million development sells for about $500,000.

"We’ve been at it for the last four years and it probably will go on for another four years."

United Gulf has also built 30 townhouses in Glen Arbour and intends to build another 30, he said.

( [email protected])
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 3:35 PM
phrenic phrenic is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 412
Good to see that attention is being paid to this, but I will remain cynical of this until I see things moving around on that site.

Hopefully they don't alter the twisting aspect. That's the best part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2010, 3:40 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I have to admit I'm cynical about this as well. I really hope they don't change the design too much.

I have a fear that they've finally realized they've bitten off more than they can chew financially.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 5:38 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
The original United Gulf proposal was mostly condos, along with a smaller hotel component (the narrower tower on Sackville Street). There was some office space included but I think it was small-scale stuff to be located on a second floor - maybe offices for United Gulf or doctor's offices and so on.

I am having troubles finding the original DA for this development but it was granted on March 21, 2006 and the expiry date was March 21, 2010. This to me strongly suggests that the date was not changed based on the URB hearing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 11:31 AM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 1,316
I personally think that Lady MacSaberi doth protest too much.

The more he says "I am definitely not selling. Nope, no way am I selling. Totally 110% committed to this. I would never ever in a million years sell this. Well, I mean if someone made me an offer I can't refuse I would have to consider it. But there is absolutely no way I am selling.", the more it sounds to me like he is trying to bait an offer if it is lucrative enough. It would not surprise me if he is hoping to make a profit off the downtown land and use it to help offset some of his other projects (especially given the issues that have been reported about some of those projects). Might be wrong, but I just feel suspicious when some ones protests that strongly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 1:30 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyeas View Post
I personally think that Lady MacSaberi doth protest too much.

The more he says "I am definitely not selling. Nope, no way am I selling. Totally 110% committed to this. I would never ever in a million years sell this. Well, I mean if someone made me an offer I can't refuse I would have to consider it. But there is absolutely no way I am selling.", the more it sounds to me like he is trying to bait an offer if it is lucrative enough. It would not surprise me if he is hoping to make a profit off the downtown land and use it to help offset some of his other projects (especially given the issues that have been reported about some of those projects). Might be wrong, but I just feel suspicious when some ones protests that strongly.
Hence why i stated that when i read the article is came accross to me that "its for sale"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2010, 3:38 PM
HRM HRM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Agreed. There's no other way to read it. The site is for sale. I'm sure feelers were put out to the deep pockets in town long before the CH article. Seems like saving face PR 101 when an org cannot proceed with a project.

Today - "it's not for sale, unless someone offers top dollar."

Future date - "someone made an offer I couldn't refuse."

That was my first impression anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.