[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C - Page 59

Haliguy · #**1161** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 1:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnotherNorthender

Council approved the variances this evening

Great news! Can't believe we are fianlly going to see something built on this site!

kzt79 · #**1162** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Great news! Can't believe we are fianlly going to see something built on this site!

I won't believe it until I see it. Only been what, 25 years?

Haliguy · #**1163** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kzt79

I won't believe it until I see it. Only been what, 25 years?

15 I believe

ns_kid · #**1164** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kzt79

I won't believe it until I see it. Only been what, 25 years?

United Gulf acquired the site in 2004 and filed its first development plan in 2005.

kzt79 · #**1165** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ns_kid

United Gulf acquired the site in 2004 and filed its first development plan in 2005.

OK so it will be > 2 decades from start to finish, assuming the current plan materializes. Pretty impressive!

Keith P. · #**1166** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 6:22 PM**

And thanks to the former anti-development HRM Council we have a fairly uninspired pair of comparatively stubby boxes instead of something tall and architecturally significant. Shameful.

kzt79 · #**1167** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And thanks to the former anti-development HRM Council we have a fairly uninspired pair of comparatively stubby boxes instead of something tall and architecturally significant. Shameful.

Another piece in the emerging flat tabletop of short fat buildings.

someone123 · #**1168** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And thanks to the former anti-development HRM Council we have a fairly uninspired pair of comparatively stubby boxes instead of something tall and architecturally significant. Shameful.

I don't think this one is even up to the ramparts line, itself a height limit of dubious value. I don't mind viewplanes that preserve important public views.

It is going to be a bit strange with downtown having much lower height limits than areas farther out. It probably doesn't matter that much in the older mostly built out parts of downtown, but allowing more height at Cogswell could make a difference to building quality, options, and the amount of new space and vibrancy.

terrynorthend · #**1169** Posted **Feb 15, 2024, 8:43 PM**

I agree! The HRMxDesign document is feeling pretty out of date these days with the 5 alarm push for density. They honestly should re-designate the district as up to 40 storys and moderate site planes with FARs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this one is even up to the ramparts line, itself a height limit of dubious value. I don't mind viewplanes that preserve important public views.

It is going to be a bit strange with downtown having much lower height limits than areas farther out. It probably doesn't matter that much in the older mostly built out parts of downtown, but allowing more height at Cogswell could make a difference to building quality, options, and the amount of new space and vibrancy.

eastcoastal · #**1170** Posted **Feb 20, 2024, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And thanks to the former anti-development HRM Council we have a fairly uninspired pair of comparatively stubby boxes instead of something tall and architecturally significant. Shameful.

Yeah - my favourite proposal for this site is still the original, "twisted," one.

OldDartmouthMark · #**1171** Posted **Feb 20, 2024, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Yeah - my favourite proposal for this site is still the original, "twisted," one.

Ditto.