HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Cunard in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 5:36 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
One of the candidates running to replace Mason is decrying this approval by saying that since it is publicly owned it should be a park or affordable housing or some other public use.
This is a pretty common opinion but it's misguided and doesn't make sense given the history of the area. The land was acquired and handed over to Develop NS to be developed. It is not like the commons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 5:39 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, there are a large number of usual suspects who probably have the number to apply for an appeal on speed dial. One of the candidates running to replace Mason is decrying this approval by saying that since it is publicly owned it should be a park or affordable housing or some other public use. She has zero change of getting elected. Hopefully others with better chances are taking on Mason.
If that were the case though all approvals would be appealed. This is the only one I can think of that has had appeals that will force it to go to council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 5:54 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
Being at an iconic location, I'm not concerned with the affordability of this particular site. If anything, the architectural improvements we've requested would drive up prices.

However, what concerns me is the dismissive attitude some social media commentators had towards affordable housing on the peninsula. I generally approve of this proposal despite its shortcomings, although many of the proponents are vastly overstating the benefits with dubious claims that it will "create 100s of steady jobs" or how "downtown living isn't supposed to be affordable and affordable housing is the government's problem". Considering that these commentators are often the children or extended family of developers, it's understandable why many feel disillusioned.

I don't think height cuts, let alone converting the entire lot to parkspace is warranted. Nonethless, the pressure to at least provide attractive public space would give something back and show responsibility for the surrounding community.

Last edited by Good Baklava; Sep 6, 2020 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 6:08 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Baklava View Post
I don't think height cuts, let alone converting the entire lot to parkspace is warranted. Nonethless, the pressure to at least provide attractive public space would give something back and show responsibility for the surrounding community.
There is some public space included as part of the proposal. It's possible the developer or Develop NS would be receptive to ideas for getting better use out of it. This is not a popular opinion but I think of Halifax more as a city with poorly used public space than as a city with a shortage of public space. The ball diamonds on the North Common are one example of that.

I think some of the affordability discussion amounts to growing pains although it is true that vacancies are low and the municipality is slow to approve new development. Only a few years ago pretty much every part of Halifax was somewhat affordable. But it's becoming a bigger and more desirable city.

The big blind spot of affordable housing advocates is that they don't question the large areas of detached housing zoning in outer Peninsula neighbourhoods like the West End.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 7:38 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
This is not a popular opinion but I think of Halifax more as a city with poorly used public space than as a city with a shortage of public space.
This is along the lines of what I was trying to say, they could have done better than just a couple of trees and bike racks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 11:44 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Baklava View Post
This is along the lines of what I was trying to say, they could have done better than just a couple of trees and bike racks.
Or at least a couple of trees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 11:48 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by atbw View Post
Looking at the candidate listing, all three including Mason are broadly progressive, pro-transit, pro-affordable housing, pro-active transport. Maybe that's what the citizens of downtown and South End want? Otherwise, wouldn't someone else be running? Or would they have been taken out by the so-called bicycle mafia?
Candidates for Council and those ultimately elected seldom represent what the community "wants". They are just the ones with the ego to want such a public role, the drive to get the best job they likely will ever have, and the ability to spout what they think will get them elected in their district. I can assure you that most denizens of the South End do not want "affordable housing" in that area. Heck, most don't even want a building more than 3 storeys tall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 2:32 PM
Citizen_Bane's Avatar
Citizen_Bane Citizen_Bane is offline
Just 183 km north of...
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Halifax
Posts: 89
I'm reminded of councilor Sloan some years back standing at council with a list of one hundred signatures raised far above her head and loudly pronouncing 'this is want my constituents want!'. Seems that the many thousands of her other constituents didn't matter because they hadn't signed the paper. Not my idea of a leader. And certainly I would not vote for a candidate who kowtowed to the loudmouthed squeaky wheel types rather than take an educated informed approach to the betterment of my city. I suspect that the loudmouthed squeaky wheel types always vote and many of the hard working child raising masses who deserve the best city possible find it difficult to find the time to vote or follow current city issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 3:07 PM
MolteN MolteN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 48
What frustrates me constantly is how the local media provides a platform for these NIMBYS who are afraid and reject the idea of change for Halifax. A whopping 23 appeals in a city of 450,000. Wow.

For a long time this was okay because we only really had intra-provincial migration. Over the last five years that trend changed when a steady flow of Canadians from outside Nova Scotia and foreign immigrants began settling here. The lack of any pre-emptive planning to mitigate the housing crisis was never done.

One of the policy changes HRM is requesting to the provincial government is control within their border's for affordable housing. Out of sheer desperation because the province isn't doing the job.

1. We shouldn't expect private developers to include affordable housing.

2. The city needs to streamline application to approval process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 5:39 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolteN View Post
What frustrates me constantly is how the local media provides a platform for these NIMBYS who are afraid and reject the idea of change for Halifax. A whopping 23 appeals in a city of 450,000. Wow.

For a long time this was okay because we only really had intra-provincial migration. Over the last five years that trend changed when a steady flow of Canadians from outside Nova Scotia and foreign immigrants began settling here. The lack of any pre-emptive planning to mitigate the housing crisis was never done.

One of the policy changes HRM is requesting to the provincial government is control within their border's for affordable housing. Out of sheer desperation because the province isn't doing the job.

1. We shouldn't expect private developers to include affordable housing.

2. The city needs to streamline application to approval process.
You've highlighted another lament of mine. It would be wrong to deprive NIMBYs of a voice, but the problem is a lack of diversity in the voices we hear. The Coast and Chronicle Herald seem to think Peggy Cameron and Larry Haiven are the only ones worth hearing from. These two falsely claim to be advocates of affordable housing, public consultation and the environment but are in reality elitists exploiting these concerns to their own benefit, muting those who would actually be impacted.

These two and social media commentators often like to place the blame on new developments for increasing housing prices but the declining affordability, as many here have pointed out, is symptomatic of other often positive changes in the city. For example, without mentioning ongoing demographic changes, adding a bus rapid transit corridor raises land values along the route (Mulley & Tsai, 2016). Get this: even planting TREES has been shown to contribute to gentrification (Haase et al., 2017). So generally speaking, the higher prices could be justified by attractive neighbourhood characteristics that attract talent to the city.

I still believe the city should be careful not to let affordability drive away talent. Our rental and housing prices may be far below those found in Toronto and Vancouver, but we can't forget that the Haligonian median income is lower than the national median ($69,522 v. $70,336). Sure, engineering and computer science graduates may have no problem finding accomodation, but the city needs a foundation of nurses, construction workers and tradesmen to drive the local economy. It's the wellbeing of these latter groups which is increasingly questioned.

I'm worried that any debate about housing would escalate into a battle between Keynesianism and Neoliberlism. I will however say that inclusionary zoning has been falling out of favour among planners in recent years, in favour of other means such as changes to permitted density, unit sizes, land leases as opposed to sale and cash payments where applicable.

Before my statements about transit and trees get called anectdotal, I have come equipped with references:

Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., . . . Wolff, M. (2017). Greening cities – to be socially inclusive? about the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International, 64, 41-48. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005

Mulley, C., & Tsai, C. -. P. (2016). When and how much does new transport infrastructure add to property values? evidence from the bus rapid transit system in sydney, australia. Transport Policy, 51, 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.011

https://www.novascotia.ca/finance/st...s.asp?id=13155

Last edited by Good Baklava; Sep 7, 2020 at 6:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 5:41 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
For me this is purely based on design and the developer flaunting their disdain for what the downtown bylaws call for this site. I don't expect there to be much or any affordable housing on the waterfront. But what I do expect is a quality of design and material that is higher than in the rest of the downtown. We are seeing this with Queens Marquee as it comes together.

What was approved for this site is no better than anything being built out along the Bicentennial Highway and the staff report reflected this by recommending refusal of most of the variances the developer was requesting.

I would rather see this approval overturned and the design scrapped and continue having a parking lot here than see this design built as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 6:02 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
Spandrel panels are the new vinyl siding...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 12:50 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Big article on the appeal in the Herald today.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...ts-say-498565/

It sounds like all of those who appealed are residents across lower water street. They don't seem to be the usual NYMBYs. They are fine with losing their views to new development, they are just upset about the process and rules not being followed by the DRC which I agree with.

Goes to council for appeal on Sept 29th.
Sounds like they have a good case to get it appealed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 1:26 AM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
Big article on the appeal in the Herald today.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...ts-say-498565/

It sounds like all of those who appealed are residents across lower water street. They don't seem to be the usual NYMBYs. They are fine with losing their views to new development, they are just upset about the process and rules not being followed by the DRC which I agree with.
.
I wouldn't be so sure. Here is a quote from the bottom of the article:

"Holding a picture of the Thursday morning sunrise over the harbour taken from her condo, Cruikshank emphasized that she is not happy to be losing her sixth-floor view.
“We have a sun deck that will be a shade deck,” she said. “We’ll lose our view, we’ll be in the shade. The building across the street is proposed to be 49.5 metres high, our building is approximately 20 metres high.”"

There are always their own personal motives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 4:53 AM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace somewhere
Posts: 501
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if all the By-laws were followed to a point would they not still have their view blocked? I don't think variances are enough of an excuse to claim "the rules were ignored". They should have instead focused their energy on advocating for a higher architectural standard or better streetscape design along Lower Water st.
__________________
Haligonian in exile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 4:55 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I am skeptical when they barely tied the variances to their comments. I doubt that if it were a similar proposal but with better street activation along Lower Water or less shadowing of the public area (but still blocked views) they would be happy with it. But who knows? And it doesn't really matter for the appeal. I assume the question will be whether or not the decision makers reasonably followed the rules, including any allowances for discretion which may include the ability to approve variances. If there were no discretion I don't think there would be votes, it would just go to bureaucrats.

I feel like it is not an ideal project but that it's not terrible either and there's something to be said for allowing developers to move forward with new housing and filling in empty lots. I think that a lot of improvement is incremental and there are many parts of the waterfront that can still be improved. I think the biggest problem on the waterfront is a lack of progress and development, not poor quality development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 6:14 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
... I feel like it is not an ideal project but that it's not terrible either and there's something to be said for allowing developers to move forward with new housing and filling in empty lots. I think that a lot of improvement is incremental and there are many parts of the waterfront that can still be improved. I think the biggest problem on the waterfront is a lack of progress and development, not poor quality development.
I agree that improvement is incremental, and I also feel like not everything must be some architectural marvel - decent massing and response to the neighbourhood should be enough for making a great place to live/work/play.

HOWEVER.

I think the waterfront ought to be held to a higher standard. Is what we're seeing the best this developer and design team could do? Does it seem like it seriously thinks about how to add to the boardwalk and public spaces at the waters edge (beyond simply filling space that's currently used for storing cars and hosting ribs festivals with a building)? I think the public spaces should be exceptional here, even if the building isn't. From what I see in the proposal, the public spaces seem barely marginal, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 7:59 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I think the public spaces should be exceptional here, even if the building isn't. From what I see in the proposal, the public spaces seem barely marginal, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
I think this is on Develop NS, to the extent it's an issue. I'm sure Southwest wants the public space to be nice too but their prime concern is selling or renting space so they will tend to focus on interiors and private amenities and then curb appeal to some degree. If you look at Curve/Pavilion and Maple they don't really offer exceptional public spaces, and people were happy to have the Annandale passageway.

I should also mention I don't think the waterfront actually has a shortage of open outdoor spaces. It has a surplus of dead zones and parking lots. If you look around downtown, much of it is fine with a small park or square every few blocks. I think the waterfront should have some space like that but that it should still be basically proportional to the number of nearby residents and businesses or amount of overall traffic. The boardwalk itself already serves as one large pedestrian-friendly space so it provides a good baseline. If the Cunard lot specifically offered 0 public space I don't think that would be a significant problem. There is a big public space right next door in front of the NSP building. How it relates to Lower Water Street and ties it through to the boardwalk is much more important.

Halifax has the same problem with the Commons where there's an abstract principle of this land being public space which somehow has morphed into it in practical terms being a mix of vague sports fields, hospital buildings, and parkades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 8:57 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,979
The main problem I have with the proposal isn't what the people appealing have, as I would guess they would have a similar problem with what I would prefer. My issue is the absolutely uninspired architecture of the proposal. People mocked the original version a few years ago as looking like a cruise ship run aground, and while I agree it wasn't great, at least it was distinctive and looked better than this bland concept. Why is it so hard for Halifax projects to get even halfway-decent architecture on prime sites?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 5:31 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
The main problem I have with the proposal isn't what the people appealing have, as I would guess they would have a similar problem with what I would prefer. My issue is the absolutely uninspired architecture of the proposal. People mocked the original version a few years ago as looking like a cruise ship run aground, and while I agree it wasn't great, at least it was distinctive and looked better than this bland concept. Why is it so hard for Halifax projects to get even halfway-decent architecture on prime sites?
I completely agree.

That being said, the poorly designed building is already approved and without the appeals we will be stuck with it. And if the appeals can rip up the process of granting all of the variances that the DRC allowed for this building, then hopefully the developer can go back to the drawing board and come up with something better.

The variances that were granted were a good deal to what contribute to this being a poorly designed building.
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 9:32 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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