That semi-circular bump out really seems unnecessary and out of place. It makes the walkway very narrow and choked-off at that spot. Some illumination along the left side of the pictured area would make it much more welcoming after dark as well.
What a great view of the Gardens folks on the upper floors are going to have, eh? Pretty impressive in the summer months I bet. Looking forward to the 'Y' reopening it's doors. I was hoping it would be a 24hr facility like the Fit4Less though. I bet it's going to be some nice when it's finished.
What a great view of the Gardens folks on the upper floors are going to have, eh? Pretty impressive in the summer months I bet. Looking forward to the 'Y' reopening it's doors. I was hoping it would be a 24hr facility like the Fit4Less though. I bet it's going to be some nice when it's finished.
It's a great spot to live. On top of that they have the rooftop patio with a pool. Very few buildings have that combo of location and amenities.
What a great view of the Gardens folks on the upper floors are going to have, eh? Pretty impressive in the summer months I bet. Looking forward to the 'Y' reopening it's doors. I was hoping it would be a 24hr facility like the Fit4Less though. I bet it's going to be some nice when it's finished.
For $5250/month cost for some of the units... I'd hope they would
I drove past here today and in looking at what we ended up with, while the buildings themselves are very nice and will be (IMO) one of the better new developments we have seen in some time, I could not help but think how a taller, narrow point tower of some sort set back toward the east part of the property line would have made it look much more impressive. My initial thought was that it would have suited the Curve on the corner of Sackville St but really one on any of the 3 would have really set this apart. I'm not thinking of anything absurdly tall, but a skinny tower of perhaps 6 or 8 floors. It's a shame we are so phobic about building height.
I believe this one was shaped by the ramparts bylaw, and that's why there's a roof slope up and away from the Citadel shared by both buildings.
I think the ramparts bylaw should simply be dropped. It's not a good trade-off. It's basically a ban on landmark highrise buildings downtown in exchange for minimal benefit. It also distorts heights in a way that makes little sense from an urban planning perspective. Downtown Halifax for example should have taller buildings up the hill and shorter buildings down the hill to maximize light to and views from the buildings. It's very hard to do staggered heights with Halifax's low downtown height limits, and there is no mechanism to enable the small-scale variety in height that would naturally happen with market-based building heights.