HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2021, 12:50 AM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I wonder how much this held back the early resurgence of downtown. The effect may have been pretty significant, e.g. imagine if the Texpark towers had been built before 2008. The quality of developments is mostly higher now, so shifting development later in time can be good too, but I think when it comes to something like downtown development there is a big advantage to having a critical mass of residents catered to by businesses and an ecosystem that supports regular projects that developers can basically "iterate" on like what Southwest has done. The developers often seem to get better by doing.
I feel like there were a number of factors at play. I think the planning rules had gaps that both sides could leverage, it seems like the market was only just starting to pick up, there still seemed to be a tendency to lean towards condo which seems to stall out with pre-sales. I think your last point is a big one, I think a bulk of the big developers today were still maturing. Dexel is a great example of progression as they complete more projects. Westwood, who this thread is about is another great example. I think it’s great the market is full of enthusiastic local developers.

Regarding Richmond Yards above grade work starting early, ahead of full approvals - I assume this would be at their risk, going beyond a permit approval. Similar to Southwest getting prepped to go at the Cunard site. Seeing the market, maybe they feel the risk of having to change plans outweighs the risk of starting 6 months later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2021, 1:14 AM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
The recent Hogan Court case is the only one I recall in the last couple years.
That was the Cresco appeal. It definitely wasn't the only one in the past several years. I could go through the reports and compile a list, but not tonight. But just a few months before Cresco was the Hatchet Lake Plaza case, which was just as bad.

Quote:
That seemed like it was an awful waste of taxpayer money. From the surface, it looked like a pointless fight.
Like Hatchet Lake Plaza, Cresco was a ludicrous waste of time, and the UARB in its decision took great care to spell out in detail just how silly the council's decision was. The application was for a trivial change to the development agreement and should have been an absolute no-brainer for the community council. And, true to form, they found a way to feck it up.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, in both cases before the Board, HRM's lawyers led no evidence at all, simply because they knew the councillors' decisions were indefensible in law. Both appeals were essentially unopposed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2021, 12:20 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
He’s not wrong though, very often Council’s hands are tied if they’re doing their job properly when it comes to planning matters. Constituents don’t want to hear that though, so sometimes you’ll see Councillors try to go outside the scope of their job. Sam doesn’t do that; instead, he does a good job of explaining why his hands are tied, and people appreciate that.
He seems to feel he is our version of a Robert Moses figure, able to dictate his vision to those staff responsible for putting forward capital projects and having them carry it out. As I recall, while he was trained as a planner, his work with the Feds was as a property officer, so he was not putting that training to use very much in that role. Now he is the 500lb gorilla at HRM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2021, 1:25 PM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I believe rules like what height of building can be built on a given block are effectively controlled by council (e.g. specified in HRM by Design and they vote to approve it; I am not sure the MPS is as prescriptive about height but I think that was approved by municipal level governments too), not prescribed by provincial statute.
But those sorts of rules are not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the rules which prescribe the application process for approval of development agreements (or amendment of them) by community councils and what the specific powers and responsibilities of the councillors are in such matters. And those rules are not council's; they are solely a matter of provincial law.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2021, 5:20 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,024
I grabbed some photos today, looks like the climbing frame is on site for the crane of the tallest building. To clear the other cranes, it would be jacked quite tall.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 2:48 AM
Querce Querce is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 129
The public hearing for this is Tuesday, April 27th, at 6 PM during the Halifax and West Community Council

https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/com...ouncil-special
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 10:22 AM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Querce View Post
The public hearing for this is Tuesday, April 27th, at 6 PM during the Halifax and West Community Council
Especially given the current progress of construction, this project has plenty of momentum and the council meeting should be as close to a rubber-stamp function as there could be. Doesn't mean we won't hear some whining, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 6:50 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
This was approved last night with all councillors speaking in favour of the development.

Two interesting take-aways:

1. Under centre plan they could have had even more density on the site. But the tower of course would not have been as tall or as wide.

2. Also under new permitting rules developers can build structures up to a height of 0.6m above ground. In this case along Almond street there was a miscommunication between developer and contractor so the first level of columns was poured. The city issued a stop work order on that part of the development until all approvals are in order.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 8:10 PM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
This was approved last night with all councillors speaking in favour of the development.
Excellent news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2021, 12:03 AM
Haliguy's Avatar
Haliguy Haliguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
This was approved last night with all councillors speaking in favour of the development.

Two interesting take-aways:

1. Under centre plan they could have had even more density on the site. But the tower of course would not have been as tall or as wide.

2. Also under new permitting rules developers can build structures up to a height of 0.6m above ground. In this case along Almond street there was a miscommunication between developer and contractor so the first level of columns was poured. The city issued a stop work order on that part of the development until all approvals are in order.

Great news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2021, 2:23 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
2. Also under new permitting rules developers can build structures up to a height of 0.6m above ground. In this case along Almond street there was a miscommunication between developer and contractor so the first level of columns was poured. The city issued a stop work order on that part of the development until all approvals are in order.
Do you mean that they can build up to 0.6m above ground before the approval process is completed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2021, 7:51 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Do you mean that they can build up to 0.6m above ground before the approval process is completed?
Yes. They still require permits in place but only unlivable space can be built with the underground permits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2021, 10:15 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted May 16, 2021, 1:27 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
This are at-grade will be the future Clifton Green. The photo is from the corner of Clifton & St. Alban's and is looking towards Almon. There will be a mid-rise multi-unit with townhouses on the left and the 30-storey building on the right.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2021, 4:01 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2021, 8:44 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
This one seems to be moving along fairly quickly:


Source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2021, 4:01 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
This angle shows the "L" shape of the tower.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2021, 12:51 PM
atbw atbw is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
This angle shows the "L" shape of the tower.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)
I’m a little lost on which part of the building this is - is this the main tower or another part?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2021, 1:42 PM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by atbw View Post
I’m a little lost on which part of the building this is - is this the main tower or another part?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "main", but if you mean tallest, then yes - I believe this is Tower A, the 30-storey building. The others will be 13, 12, 10 and 8 storeys.

Last edited by Saul Goode; Oct 13, 2021 at 3:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2021, 6:11 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,310
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.