[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[teddifax]

What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by teddifax

What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!

The garden's south of the tower, so it seems like it wouldn't get shadows from the new building.

This is actually quite a good location for a taller building since Robie and Quinpool are so wide and because the Commons are nearby. There should be higher density development around parks. They are more desirable, and the developments "activate the edges" of the park (in Jane Jacobs pseudoscience speak), making the area more lively and providing more in the way of local shops and services.

[JET]

Originally Posted by teddifax

What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!

Well, it could be a permanent location, at least in our lifetimes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

What gets me is that the "garden" next to the hospital is NOT a permanent location, yet they are trying to stop a building based on their existence..... go figure!

And upon a non-existent shadow from this building being cast over their precious garden. It would be far better used as a parking lot until the hospital is ready to expand.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't know that there isn't a place for staff when it comes to policy for city-building. I would rather thoughtful professionals guide the process than a private business.

Not saying OUR professional staff is thoughtful, or that our developers are looking for ways to ruin the city, but I do think that bureaucracy is an important part of how a GOOD city should be built - I feel like it needs targets and an overall plan, not ad-hoc proposals from individual developers

But the bureaucracy's response was equally ad-hoc.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But the bureaucracy's response was equally ad-hoc.

I don't disagree - not much rationale to convince me that 20 stories is better than 29... just as I'm not convinced 29 is better than 20. It's all pretty theoretical, and I would be happy to have clear guidelines rather than "anything over three storeys requires a Development Agreement..."

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

The garden's south of the tower, so it seems like it wouldn't get shadows from the new building.

This is actually quite a good location for a taller building since Robie and Quinpool are so wide and because the Commons are nearby. There should be higher density development around parks. They are more desirable, and the developments "activate the edges" of the park (in Jane Jacobs pseudoscience speak), making the area more lively and providing more in the way of local shops and services.

Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.

Well, you know how those anti-development, left-winger, enviro-loving SJWs are...

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Yeah - weird to suggest that a building to the north of the site will make it unusable as a garden.

The sun would have to be in the NW quadrant to cast a shadow on the 'gardens' and by that time the 'gardens' would have had a great deal of sun. The 29 storey monster is NW of the gardens.
The 'gardens' supporters look foolish trotting out the shadow argument, not surprising when none of them could explain 'box the compass'

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The sun would have to be in the NW quadrant to cast a shadow on the 'gardens' and by that time the 'gardens' would have had a great deal of sun. The 29 storey monster is NW of the gardens.
The 'gardens' supporters look foolish trotting out the shadow argument, not surprising when none of them could explain 'box the compass'

We all know this has nothing to do with the garden.

Ironic that those against the capture of public spaces by "private" interests have done just that: they've taken the former QEH site that is to be for the hospital space and taken it ransom.

I'm not against the community garden, but I am against fake arguments because people don't like height. Another irony is that those against height are legitimately causing sprawl due to their imposed constraints on peninsular density. If people say that isn't the case... well, that's just b/s. The city is going to grow and the obstructionists play a big role in whether or not that is out... or up. There is nothing wrong with 29 stories here. It will make Quinpool businesses much more viable.

[counterfactual]

I'm sorry, but the garden is going to have to go if a good proposal comes for that land. Give me a break.

[JET]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I'm sorry, but the garden is going to have to go if a good proposal comes for that land. Give me a break.

Since it's 'common land'; I expect that a private 'proposal' would not be considered; and the hospital plans don't seem to include the garden lands. It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by JET

Since it's 'common land'; I expect that a private 'proposal' would not be considered; and the hospital plans don't seem to include the garden lands. It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows.

And that is fine! The issue here is that its temporary use may be used as an excuse to not build height in the area.

There are better places for a garden on the common lands that are less exposed to exhaust.

[JET]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

And that is fine! The issue here is that its temporary use may be used as an excuse to not build height in the area.

There are better places for a garden on the common lands that are less exposed to exhaust.

I think that you might have missed my last line:
"It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows."
I agree that a 29 storey building would not cast shadows on the urban farm.
I probably should have added a lol or somethin'

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by JET

I think that you might have missed my last line:
"It might stay the way it is for a long time, far away from any intruding shadows."
I agree that a 29 storey building would not cast shadows on the urban farm.
I probably should have added a lol or somethin'

I agree! My point is that the logic used against developments like this are frequently not based in reality, but the anti-height crowd has to manufacture ideas.

[Dmajackson]

This project is going forward to Halifax & West Community Council next week for first reading.

http://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/west/...28Item1313.pdf

[Jonovision]

I still think this proposal needs some work.
My main concern being the strange changes that run up along the Quinpool Rd facade of the tower. In some of the renderings it looks as if it is made of aluminium panels and in others it appears as though it would be brick. Either material I think would be awkward as it is rotated between colours and glass sections as well. It feels like it makes the tower clunky and unresolved.

[Dmajackson]

This project is going before Regional Council on Tuesday for first reading. H&WCC supported the project at the last meeting, provided it is not taller than 62m (~203'). Staff recommended the approval of the proposed 88m height.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0321ca1431.pdf

[Dmajackson]

Halifax regional council moves ahead with shorter version of Willow Tree development
By: Zane Woodford Metro Published on Tue Mar 21 2017

A controversial proposal for the corner of Robie Street and Quinpool Road has shrunk by nine storeys after a debate in Halifax regional council on Tuesday.

By a vote of 13 to four, council voted to approve a recommendation from the Halifax and West community council to take the proposed development for the Willow Tree down from 29 storeys to 62 metres, which is about 20 storeys, and schedule a public hearing on the proposal.

Before the municipal election last fall, the last regional council approved bylaw amendments to allow for a 29-storey development on the site, even though municipal planning staff recommended capping it at 20.

...

Read More at metronews.ca

[Keith P.]

Utterly ridiculous but unsurprising given our new anti-development council. Zurawski said anything taller than what was already there was "Too TALL!!!!".

I suppose whatever stubby sawed-off structure eventually gets approved for here will require red-brick cladding and faux-Victorian styrofoam cornices.