[Halifax] Grand Haven Estates | ? m | 4x12 fl | U/C - Page 3

Keith P. · #41 Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawsond

Ha! My thoughts exactly. Looks like this developer just rattles around the suburbs coughing up ugly, slab boxes like fur balls.
But you know, suburbs are the same everywhere. Halifax just has unfortunate geology. The rocks just make it look more dreary and bleak.

This Giannoulis fellow does a good pan-fried haddock and a decent rice pudding. But as a developer... not so much.

Waye Mason · #42 Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 6:52 PM**

The pavilion in the centre reminds me of all those three tower 1970s apartment buildings that line Steeles in Toronto west of Yonge. All of those cul-de-sacs with 3 towers, a common pavilion, broken lights, unsafe underground connections, and abandoned retail in the common space, where no one could make it work. This design may have faux copper roofs, but what I see is a liptstick on the same kind of cheap failed pig of a design that people strive to avoid building in larger cities.

halifaxboyns · #43 Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 10:18 PM**

For a 7.7 ha site; with 360 units (if that number is correct in the article), the total density is still rather low for 'high density'. It would work out to be 46.75 units per ha. If Fenwick's number (of units) is correct (at 788), then the density is 102.34 units per ha. Still rather low for a 'high density' site considering the lowest density multi-tower site in Calgary is about 125 units/ha.

fenwick16 · #44 Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

For a 7.7 ha site; with 360 units (if that number is correct in the article), the total density is still rather low for 'high density'. It would work out to be 46.75 units per ha. If Fenwick's number (of units) is correct (at 788), then the density is 102.34 units per ha. Still rather low for a 'high density' site considering the lowest density multi-tower site in Calgary is about 125 units/ha.

The 788 units is for the total of 5 different blocks (I am not sure what the total area is for all 5 blocks). The 360 units is going on one block (Block B) which according to the story is 7.7 hectares. The number that you worked out (46.75 units per hectare) is right according to my calculation. However, I don't think this is considered to be high density at 30 people per acre. As a comparison, I think that the maximum on the peninsula is 250 people per acre - page 85/257 - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...alifax_MPS.pdf, although Fenwick Towers has applied for a higher density.

These are the blocks (image, below) that the story refers to (Jonovision's post #37), and the maximum permissible density for each block (shown in the image legend):
(source: page 27/33 - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...4StageI_DA.pdf) . The Google Map link for this area is here

There are only four blocks shown for development - A, B, C and D (a couple blocks are "not for development") whereas the story refers to 5 blocks (there is also one unlabeled block). Block B is the one that will have the Panorama 4 buildings with 360 units.

halifaxboyns · #45 Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 5:26 AM**

The number of people on the site will depend on the definition of habitable rooms and the design of the units. It's quite possible to have a 1 bedroom apt make up 3 people because the living room/dinning room are over 400 square metres (equally two habitable rooms) and then the bedroom. Thus 3 habitable rooms = 3 people.

This proposal is okay; it's typical suburban density. It could be better and could be a greater person/acre count - but considering the limitations of the site and how the end result ended up for the subdivision; its probably too late and I don't expect much from this beyond working within the DA constraints.

fenwick16 · #46 Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 7:18 AM**

The legend in the image from the DA that I posted above specifies a maximum of 1,866 people in a total of 200 + 400 + 340 + 200 units = 1140 units (Block A + B + C + D). This would be on average 1866 people/1140 units = 1.64 people per unit. Although the development agreement for Block B specifies a maximum of 400 units, the Panorama will be only 360 units.

Regarding population densities, they are using the following calculation: (source: page 9 of 33 of the pdf file, section 3.4.1 - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...4StageI_DA.pdf ) - this is the wording from the development agreement below. (I would personally use "people" instead of "persons")

3.4.1 Development density on the Lands shall not exceed 1866 persons, based on a maximum of 30 persons per acre.

3.4.2 Density is to be calculated by the theoretical population density generated on the basis of:

a) 1 person for each bachelor unit
b) 2 persons per each one-bedroom apartment
c) 2.25 persons per each other apartment-style unit; and
d) 3.35 persons for each townhouse unit

3.4.3 For the purposes of calculating density, one bedroom plus den units shall be considered to be the same as one-bedroom units.

3.4.4 Individual Stage II Development Agreements may develop at higher than 30 persons per acre, provided the overall limit of 1866 persons as specified in Section 3.4.1 is not exceeded

3.4.5 Density tracking calculations shall be provided to the Municipality with each application for a Stage II Development Agreement and to the Development Officer with each application for a permit.

I agree, it would be better to have a higher density, although 30 people per acre is much higher than the population density on average throughout the old city boundaries of Halifax and Dartmouth (urban core).

I would like to see the Panorama redesigned so that it doesn't have two storey blank walls. It could have integrated townhouses at street level of the apartment buildings similar to the St. Joseph proposal in North Halifax. This would be much more appealing than the 2 storey blank walls. If 2 storey townhouse units were built at street level the apartment buildings could be reduced by a couple of storeys - it would make it more livable in my opinion.

Dmajackson · #47 Posted **Sep 9, 2011, 6:10 PM**

Not certain this is the last step but this could be approved by Chebucto CC on Tuesday.

CCC Agenda - September 13th, 2011

Wishblade · #48 Posted **Sep 13, 2011, 2:45 PM**

Im not 100%, but Im pretty sure this article is talking about this development. Looks like its up for approval from community council today:

Quote:

Developer awaits approval for Clayton Park apartments

Clayton Developments Ltd. is hoping to get a final stamp of approval for four apartment buildings in the Clayton Park West area of Halifax.

Chebucto Community Council meets Tuesday to discuss the development proposal, which would be 12-storeys each and have a maximum of 400 units or 800 people.

The plans include tennis courts, a park area and a two-storey clubhouse that could include a pool, a gym, a library or a ballroom.

link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...-approval.html

Dmajackson · #49 Posted **Sep 14, 2011, 3:01 AM**

According to AllNovaScotia tonight this was APPROVED!

There is the standard fourteen day appeal period but considering the only possible naysayers live in apartment buildings nearby I can't see someone standing a chance of winning.

Jstaleness · #50 Posted **Sep 14, 2011, 3:52 PM**

I wonder if they will build all 4 buildings at once?

-Harlington- · #51 Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 4:44 AM**

Walked down the Washmill road today and it appears they have quite a bit of land cleared which i assumed was for this development, considering its approved and the road is now open i wonder if this could start construction soon

I also noticed a development agreement on a tree that mentioned 35 town house units, there was multiple road openings that look like they could be for driveways ect .

Jstaleness · #52 Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 11:50 AM**

Going by yesterday there was a large construction site where this development should be. Looks like this has started. No sign of crane pieces or foundation that I could see.

macgregor · #53 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 4:26 PM**

This came up as an ad on the Chronicle Herald site:

http://www.cosmosproperties.ca/#!contact-us

fenwick16 · #54 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by macgregor

This came up as an ad on the Chronicle Herald site:

http://www.cosmosproperties.ca/#!contact-us

It appears as though the name is now "The Grand Haven Heights" instead of the Panorama.

-Harlington- · #55 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 5:28 PM**

That name sounds like it should be a retirement home in Florida or something, The Panorama is a better name

macgregor · #56 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

That name sounds like it should be a retirement home in Florida or something, The Panorama is a better name

Maybe they will advertise the four "phases" just like Del Boca Vista.

worldlyhaligonian · #57 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by macgregor

Maybe they will advertise the four "phases" just like Del Boca Vista.

worldlyhaligonian · #58 Posted **Feb 20, 2012, 9:50 PM**

"cosmos properties", lol

Jstaleness · #59 Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 5:15 PM**

Nothing exciting yet but here is a very quick drive-by photo.

kph06 · #60 Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 2:19 AM**

Photos by me from today, this is where the Gladstone North crane will be going up.