[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C - Page 45

pblaauw · #**881** Posted **Nov 16, 2019, 7:15 AM**

Demolishing a few errant rosebushes won't take that long.

MolteN · #**882** Posted **Nov 16, 2019, 7:34 PM**

I'm happy to see this approved, I can understand the criticism regarding the bland look of the structure. Imho it seems like a post modernist take on brutalism style architecture to a degree. But there are still a lot of vacant lots in downtown and the south end that are prime real estate for mixed use towers. Parking lots of Queen ST sobeys or the superstore lot at Barrington & Hollis. Parking lot between Dresden Row & Birmingham St. Big lot right behind the new library of spring garden road. So many places so many ideas.

someone123 · #**883** Posted **Nov 16, 2019, 8:35 PM**

A lot of people seem to imagine that if you filter out the bad stuff, good stuff will get through or the developers will come back with better proposals and the end result will be better.

I don't think this is completely wrong; there's some really bad stuff that should be weeded out. But I think that building a healthy development scene and dense downtown are much more important, and to do that you have to let developers build, make money, cultivate talent, and iterate on their designs. Without that you will never get good economically viable proposals. This has clearly happened in Halifax since the 1990's when the quality of development was far below what it is today.

Another factor that HRM by Design and the Centre Plan have contributed to is that there aren't many true landmark buildings permitted. So the stakes are pretty low on just about any proposal. That wasn't the case with the 48-storey version of Skye, but the 21 storey towers are just another development that will be part of rows of towers along Sackville and Hollis.

Takeo · #**884** Posted **Nov 17, 2019, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolteN

I'm happy to see this approved, I can understand the criticism regarding the bland look of the structure. Imho it seems like a post modernist take on brutalism style architecture to a degree. But there are still a lot of vacant lots in downtown and the south end that are prime real estate for mixed use towers. Parking lots of Queen ST sobeys or the superstore lot at Barrington & Hollis. Parking lot between Dresden Row & Birmingham St. Big lot right behind the new library of spring garden road. So many places so many ideas.

I’m not seeing even a hint of Post-Modernism or Brutalism but I think I understand what you were trying to say. The podium at least is pure International Style. I like it. I’d like to see more of the tower above.

pblaauw · #**885** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 6:52 AM**

The podium blends in well with the Centennial Building across the street.

IanWatson · #**886** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 1:00 PM**

It seems like "Brutalism" has become the common shorthand for "bland, oppressive building". It's understandable confusion given the "brutal" in the name, but it's also a shame because there are a lot of very wonderful true Brutalist buildings that tend to get dismissed and ignored/allowed to be demolished because of society's aversion to the idea of the name.

McMansion Hell is making an effort (bit of a long read) to set the record straight, which I really appreciate. I'm looking forward to the third post in the series.

someone123 · #**887** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson

McMansion Hell is making an effort (bit of a long read) to set the record straight, which I really appreciate. I'm looking forward to the third post in the series.

Another one you hear is "Stalinist" which might actually be applied to what could correct be referred to as brutalist buildings. Stalin commissioned lots of neoclassical 1930's type buildings. He died in 1953 before the 60's styles really took off. Buildings like Scotia Square and Fenwick are not Stalinist.

I like that McMansion Hell article but the Vitra Conference Center is an odd example to choose if the goal is to clearly delineate the style. The brutalism misappropriation is very simple. As they say it came from French but was misunderstood in English because "brut" in "béton brut" is a false cognate; it looks like an English word with a different meaning. This is much simpler than the question who was really part of the architectural "movement" or not. Architects and architecture historians seem prone to getting in the weeds a lot over these historical trends and movements/philosophies instead of just focusing on how a building is constructed. You might get average people to understand that "brutalist" doesn't mean "brutal" but they're not going to remember which movement Le Corbusier was participating in when he designed a particular building in raw concrete.

We are living through the mass extinction of 1950's and 60's architecture right now, just as cities unwisely demolished all kinds of valuable early 20th century architecture in the 1960's.

eastcoastal · #**888** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

It's only partially covered. They have some diagrams in the DRC document. It's more like a pedway running between the two towers that will cover maybe 40% of the depth of the block...

Thanks for the details - I missed that.

DigitalNinja · #**889** Posted **Dec 13, 2020, 5:21 PM**

Appears that they are getting ready to demolish the remaining building on site. Hopefully they will start digging and not just expand the parking lot (Although right now I assume there isn't much demand for parking lots downtown)

mleblanc · #**890** Posted **Dec 13, 2020, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Appears that they are getting ready to demolish the remaining building on site. Hopefully they will start digging and not just expand the parking lot (Although right now I assume there isn't much demand for parking lots downtown)

I wish the council would put their foot down on these overly wide towers. Fortunately we won't see much of this from the waterfront skyline due to the even wider Maple directly in front of it.

Design aside, I'm very happy to see this lot get filled finally. If it ever happens. This site will forever be a myth to me

DigitalNinja · #**891** Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:43 PM**

Looks like they are getting ready to develop this site.

I saw the following application on the planning site for the site to be discharged from a previous DA that seemed to be in the system for the parking garage:

https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...street-halifax

In the letter from Upland it appears that they are seeking to obtain permits after this resolves to begin development. If everything goes well *hopefully* we can see excavation start this year.

IanWatson · #**892** Posted **May 19, 2021, 11:07 AM**

Skye was at Council yesterday for a small procedural matter - discharge of the old development resolution that was registered on the property. The resolution was related to the construction of the MetroPark garage and needed to be discharged before permits could be issued for the Skye proposal.

Saul Goode · #**893** Posted **May 19, 2021, 12:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Skye was at Council yesterday for a small procedural matter - discharge of the old development resolution that was registered on the property. The resolution was related to the construction of the MetroPark garage and needed to be discharged before permits could be issued for the Skye proposal.

Is it your impression that this project actually will finally proceed in the near future?

Hali87 · #**894** Posted **Jul 14, 2021, 11:44 PM**

There seems to be some action on the site - there was a dumpster full of debris in the parking lot and the remaining brick building looks like it's been/being gutted. Not sure if this is old news though.

someone123 · #**895** Posted **Sep 17, 2021, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

There seems to be some action on the site - there was a dumpster full of debris in the parking lot and the remaining brick building looks like it's been/being gutted. Not sure if this is old news though.

I wonder what's happening with this development, if anything? At one point they said there would be a 2021 start date.

Aegon123 · #**896** Posted **Nov 21, 2021, 3:58 PM**

There was some action on this site, but it stopped months ago. This is definitely the most frustrating development DT as I have a feeling it will be years before it will be built at this rate. It’s the biggest and most embarrassing hole DT, IMO.

Aegon123 · #**897** Posted **Nov 29, 2021, 11:49 PM**

I saw some workers from Flynn Construction inspecting the site, so hopefully there will soon be some action on this site.

atbw · #**898** Posted **Nov 30, 2021, 12:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegon123

There was some action on this site, but it stopped months ago. This is definitely the most frustrating development DT as I have a feeling it will be years before it will be built at this rate. It’s the biggest and most embarrassing hole DT, IMO.

This and the Ralston lot make this part of downtown feel kind of odd. You get used to it a bit, but it’s weird that on a main thoroughfare in the densest part of the city, there’s two massive vacant lots.

Saul Goode · #**899** Posted **Nov 30, 2021, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegon123

I saw some workers from Flynn Construction inspecting the site, so hopefully there will soon be some action on this site.

The project as approved is quite bland and uninspiring, another 20-storey "tabletop" development that won't add anything of distinction to the downtown core. Very disappointing.

But I agree it'll be great to have something finally filling that hole.

Let's hope the Ralston lot spawns something better.

someone123 · #**900** Posted **Nov 30, 2021, 5:04 PM**

It's funny because when first proposed this would have been major but now there are more towers built up to the "tabletop" ramparts limit. The previous taller iteration of Skye would have been more of a landmark but was unlikely to be approved.

If we forget our expectations around this being a landmark tower it looks like decent infill for the area. It is primarily the street level interaction and new housing/residents/businesses that will make a difference.

It's another example of the "monochrome" trend, dominated by white cladding material. Richmond Yards is similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atbw

This and the Ralston lot make this part of downtown feel kind of odd. You get used to it a bit, but it’s weird that on a main thoroughfare in the densest part of the city, there’s two massive vacant lots.

It's too bad it's still like this despite all the construction, but maybe the "parking lot district" downtown will only last a few more years.