[Halifax] Icon Bay Halifax | 75 m | 22 fl | Completed - Page 4

Jringe01 · #61 Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 6:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

^The HT might complain but they don't have much beef with suburban developments. There are four other projects they're fighting right now so they might not watse time on this one.

Oh and BTW the Information Meeting for this tomorrow night.

I wish I could go... :-(

Dmajackson · #62 Posted **Apr 2, 2009, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jringe01

I wish I could go... :-(

I really hope someone can make it. A nice picture of 3D model would be sweet

I'd settled for some inside info though.

I'm trying my best to make it to the Bedford meeting tonight.

Dmajackson · #63 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 3:25 AM**

High-rise plans concern Clayton Park residents
Halifax News Net
By Lindsay Jones – The Weekly News

Local residents are worried about how a developer’s bid to build a 23-storey condo tower on the Bedford Highway, near the entrance to Clayton Park, might affect the view, traffic and light pollution in their community.
About a dozen residents, many of whom live on nearby Laurentide Drive, came out to an April 2 public information session organized by the city to allow the developer to address the community.
The developer, WM Fares Group, wants to build the oval-shaped glass condo tower at the current site of the Bayview Motor Inn. The proposal includes 150 condo units and 104 hotel rooms, with mostly underground parking.
Glane Gorveatt of Laurentide Drive said he thought the developer and architects put forward a thoughtful proposal, but he was concerned about light pollution in the area.
“Light pollution, especially in this age of conservation, disturbs me,” Gorveatt said. “I’d like to think this building would be as dark as possible, also because of (bird) migration.”
Cesar Saleh of WM Fares Group said the development agreement would make sure that the light doesn’t extend beyond the site. He also pointed out that there is a thick buffer of trees at the back of the site.
In his presentation, Salah outlined plans to combine the various access points and make a shared driveway for the new building and two adjacent car dealerships. The plan also includes installing a traffic signal and widening the Bedford Highway for left-turning vehicles.
“The proposed project provides better and safer access to the Bedford Highway and improves traffic flow along the Bedford Highway,” Saleh said.
But Gorveatt raised concerns that having an extra set of traffic lights along the Bedford Highway would create even greater traffic woes.
Marcel Hacquebard, a resident of Laurentide Drive, says the height of the proposed project isn’t in keeping with the scale of the neighbourhood. He said it would be a “pimple on the Halifax skyline” and said two eight or nine-storey buildings, as the developer originally proposed, would blend in better with the neighbourhood.
“All of this benefits the users of the building. None of this benefits any of the surrounding people,” he said.
Clayton Park Coun. Debbie Hum asked the developer to look into making trails for pedestrians and cyclists to get on and off the site.
Regional council still has to amend the municipal planning strategy to permit the developer to submit the project. If approved, Chebucto Community Council, which is made up of five city councillors, would decide whether it gets the go-ahead. The community will have its final say at a joint public hearing before both decisions.
The developer’s goal is to have the tower built and occupied by 2012

terrynorthend · #64 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 1:34 PM**

OMG, Nimby! How on God's green Earth can "residents of Clayton Park" be complaining about traffic. They are the epitome of the traffic problems. A few more residents won't make much difference. Light pollution? The sight overlooks Ceres terminal with its 24 hour operations and millions of candlepower of overhead lighting. Make the building as dark as possible? So we dont want light and airy architecture? That's the first time I've heard that. Usually the mantra is "...don't build dark, brooding, massive obelisks...". Bird Migrations? Yeah, maybe the crows that all stream over to their roosts behind MSVU every sundown. Damn crows. Destroying views? Now we're getting somewhere. That's really what this boils down to, a few people and THEIR precious views. Do I sympathize? Maybe, but if they aren't willing to call a spade a spade and instead make up arguments about eco-sensitivity, not so much.

DigitalNinja · #65 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 3:02 PM**

What do they even have a view of? Container Terminal, burnside industrial park lights, that Gypsum place where the rusted ship always is. Something really nice to conserve. People need to get off their high horse about conserving views. When other things should take the lead with views. For example the ugly chain link fence at barrington st around the ship yard. And many other things that would make the city more inviting. A nice big glass building that would be inviting to people is the least of which they should be complaining about.

kph06 · #66 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

OMG, Nimby! How on God's green Earth can "residents of Clayton Park" be complaining about traffic. They are the epitome of the traffic problems. A few more residents won't make much difference. Light pollution? The sight overlooks Ceres terminal with its 24 hour operations and millions of candlepower of overhead lighting. Make the building as dark as possible? So we dont want light and airy architecture? That's the first time I've heard that. Usually the mantra is "...don't build dark, brooding, massive obelisks...". Bird Migrations? Yeah, maybe the crows that all stream over to their roosts behind MSVU every sundown. Damn crows. Destroying views? Now we're getting somewhere. That's really what this boils down to, a few people and THEIR precious views. Do I sympathize? Maybe, but if they aren't willing to call a spade a spade and instead make up arguments about eco-sensitivity, not so much.

Perfectly said. The light pollution argument is particularly weak, those car dealerships aren't exactly the darkest places in the city either at night.

Funny how a few residents always complain about new projects disrupting their way of life and they believe they have the right because they are they were there "first". Well, chances are where they live caused the same disturbances when it was built, but of course they never realize that. I don't think Clayton park just popped up with out a single effect on the surrounding area.

Barrington south · #67 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 6:03 PM**

F*** the birds!!!....birds before the economical health and development of our community...what does she want?... more sprawl?...possibly destroying the habitat of these precious birds!!

worldlyhaligonian · #68 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 9:19 PM**

Join the group I am working to create, we can act for positive change.

Barrington PM me your contact details.

someone123 · #69 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 10:16 PM**

I have sympathy for people who lose views and couldn't really have predicted it happening originally. I could see maybe having the developer compensate them individually - it likely wouldn't affect the project's bottom line much since it is a big tower and there as so few houses.

The conservation stuff is always pretty far-fetched. These towers are actually better for the environment than a bunch of houses.

kph06 · #70 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I have sympathy for people who lose views and couldn't really have predicted it happening originally. I could see maybe having the developer compensate them individually - it likely wouldn't affect the project's bottom line much since it is a big tower and there as so few houses.

It's too bad they will lose part of their view, but that's the risk involved with living in a city. It's unfair for one lot to dictate what is built on another unless there are clear, predetermined restrictions known to all before hand.

Dmajackson · #71 Posted **Apr 10, 2009, 10:36 PM**

I agree with kph06 on the views point.

As for the birds thing the developer has been nice enought to propose leaving a swath of forest behind the building. I doubt that would of been possible with the three buildings proposal or most other developers.

Jringe01 · #72 Posted **Apr 12, 2009, 6:09 PM**

These people have their heads stuck so far up their ass...
OMG...complaining about light pollution?????? That smacks of desperation.

The concern with the birds is a valid one though and I am glad someone raised it. It's important for developers to take that into account when building high rises of this nature and this one seems to have done so. I mean this isn't like an office tower where a whole floor of very bright bulbs can burn for hours on end. This is a residential building where the lights are not nearly as bright

I'd really like to smack the twit who said this building would be like a "pimple on the Halifax skyline".
Perhaps this person would like more of the same cookie cutter, unimaginitive, butt ugly concrete and brick buildings that already dominate the skyline built by developers who never have had any sense of style or taste and apparently never have any hope of gaining one.
You want architetcture like that...that's what Soviet Union was for. Go back in time and relive your sad sorry youth and leave us to get on with the vital task of transforming Halifax into a truely dynamic city that is not afraid to express itself, to experiment, to grow and be revitalized. sheeesh

Spitfire75 · #73 Posted **Apr 12, 2009, 7:08 PM**

But they don't mind the 14-15 story Granbury Place right beside the proposed project? Don't get me wrong, everyone has a right to complain, but developers shouldn't bend over backwards for a few NIMBYs.

Have no fail, every project will have NIMBYs. But we should just ignore them, not publish their ridiculous demands in the paper.

Jstaleness · #74 Posted **Jun 19, 2009, 9:30 PM**

Does anyone have news about this project? I really like the look and think it'll do a lot for that area. People shouldn't complain about the "Light Pollution".They should be thinking of the hydro savings because they don't have to turn on their lights at night!

Jstaleness · #75 Posted **Aug 13, 2009, 8:30 PM**

This might be old where I have been on vacation but 2 large excavators on site here today and most of the windows were taken out of the old motel. No question it's coming down very soon. Hopefully this all gets the go ahead and doesnt end up as another HRM unofficial parking lot like some of the other projects we are waiting for.

Dmajackson · #76 Posted **Aug 13, 2009, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

This might be old where I have been on vacation but 2 large excavators on site here today and most of the windows were taken out of the old motel. No question it's coming down very soon. Hopefully this all gets the go ahead and doesnt end up as another HRM unofficial parking lot like some of the other projects we are waiting for.

Yah a large excavator was taking down one the buildings when I drove by.

sdm · #77 Posted **Aug 14, 2009, 10:08 AM**

i've noticed the case for the project is no longer available on HRM website

wonder if they changed the plans again

Dmajackson · #78 Posted **Feb 24, 2010, 8:43 PM**

This is very slowly moving through the approval process. The ammendments go to Chebucto CC next week and if given a positive review it will moved to Regional Council for approval. After all that the Development Agreement can then begin its approval process.

Case 01205 Proposed Development Agreement

Jstaleness · #79 Posted **Feb 25, 2010, 12:04 AM**

That's great news. I really like this one.

sdm · #80 Posted **Feb 25, 2010, 2:11 AM**

I think the proposal is very attractive, but in the wrong location. The original proposal of two 9 storey apartment buildings was better IMO.

I rather see this new proposal in area where we need density i.e. the core.