[Halifax] Waterton Towers | 2X40 m | 2x12 fl | Completed - Page 3

Dmajackson · #41 Posted **Nov 12, 2008, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I meant fast in relative terms, the tower went up faster than Spice took to get its foundation in.

Well the Moes aren;t winning any awards thats for sure...

Its now a joke in my family. Oh look they got another panel up! That only took 6 months!

macgregor · #42 Posted **Nov 12, 2008, 1:49 PM**

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

sdm · #43 Posted **Nov 12, 2008, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by macgregor

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

All that indicates to me is condo sales are slow. If he wished to proceed with Hollis street they would likely need greater then 60% presold to secure financing. With Trillum trying to actively presale now they very well could absorb some possible purchasers from UG project.

Time will tell, but the clock is ticking on the development agreement downtown.

kph06 · #44 Posted **Nov 12, 2008, 3:15 PM**

It's true one delay was not getting enough workers, but the main reason behind this was they didn't want unionized workers for the general contractor. This is why it took so long to get the crane running because they had to find a non-union crane operator, the guy they finally got was from Australia. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I have some serious doubts about the downtown buildings happening.

worldlyhaligonian · #45 Posted **Dec 5, 2008, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by macgregor

I took a trip out to the sales office for the Waterton in the summer. The agent there said that UG wanted to sell all of the units in the first tower before they begin the second one. I have a price list dated June 26, 2008 that shows that 60/154 units still need to be sold. The agent said that the design of the building had changed some at one of the ends of the top few floors. I've looked at the photos a bit, but can't seem to see the difference.
I also seem to remember the agent saying that the delay was due to workers being in short supply, and that they might have refunded the deposits of some buyers.
Looking at the large number of units to be sold, I start to wonder if UG would intend to start building their Hollis/Sackville towers after one or both Waterton towers are done (though realizing that this may not be the only thing that would keep that from proceeding).

I wonder if tower 1 sales are complete at this point... the construction seems to be going at a good pace now.

Wishblade · #46 Posted **Dec 6, 2008, 3:26 AM**

Does anyone have any updated photos of this project? I've only been able to see it from afar and cant really get a sense of how far along this is. Although it does look like the first tower is near completion.

kph06 · #47 Posted **Dec 13, 2008, 9:22 PM**

Here are two photos I took today, of course I decided to wait all day to take them so the sun was going down. The exterior is pretty much done, cladding still has to be placed on the north end of the top two floors I think this is suppose to give it an all glass look.
Another interesting point is that the other building base as been sealed off. This fall the garage level had no roof on it and all the columns were exposed and this is where all the "flyers", the bracing system used to form the floors were all stored in the garage. So now as the second photo shows, the main floor has been poured. It seems work will not start at least for the winter because none of the development length (rebar overlap between floors) is exposed for the columns, suggesting more floors will not be poured above this level for the time being. There is however a hole covered over by plywood which I would suspect is the opening for the crane base, so that is a good sign.

sdm · #48 Posted **Dec 26, 2008, 1:29 AM**

Developer wins appeal to build 12-storey towers
PAUL MCLEOD, METRO HALIFAX
December 24, 2008 05:00

A developer has won two appeals against HRM and now has the right to build two 12-storey towers in Armdale.

The municipality originally blocked the United Gulf Developments Ltd. project at 60 Walter Havill Dr. in April 2007. The developer also had to appeal the Chebucto Community Council, which refused to amend a development agreement to permit the towers.

Much of the debate focused on whether both towers could be 12-stories tall. Under the original agreement, one tower was limited to four stories. The developer asked community council to revisit the agreement, but this was rejected without a public hearing.

The case ended up being brought to the Utility and Review Board. Yesterday they released their ruling that the community council’s refusal to amend the agreement failed to reasonably carry out the region’s planning strategy.

The UARB also ruled HRM development officer Andrew Faulkner’s rejection of the project conflicts with the development agreement.

Dmajackson · #49 Posted **Dec 26, 2008, 3:00 AM**

So is this what was holding up the second tower from going up?

If so this id great becase they might be able to start the second one next year.

sdm · #50 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 5:31 PM**

Armdale apartment decision must be appealed: councillor
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 | 11:56 AM AT Comments0Recommend0CBC News
Halifax municipal officials are considering whether to fight a decision by the provincial regulator allowing two 12-storey apartment buildings to go up in Armdale.

Regional council has asked legal staff to look into the possibility of an appeal.

Coun. Linda Mosher said the decision by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board sets a bad precedent, and she wants a court to overrule it.

"To say that two 12-storey buildings connected by the same underground parking is one building is ludicrous," Mosher said Tuesday.

There are a number of issues to consider, such as wind, shade and view planes, she said.

United Gulf Developments Ltd. first proposed one 12-storey building and two smaller units. It later asked the Chebucto Community Council to modify the development agreement and allow two 12-storey units.

The community council rejected that, prompting the developer to turn to the utility and review board.

On Dec. 23, the review board sided with United Gulf Developments' plan for two towers, saying council had no policy basis for refusing the developer the changes it wanted.

The municipality has about two weeks to decide if it will appeal to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

worldlyhaligonian · #51 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 6:00 PM**

wtf!

seriously, the first one is already built... the site would look awkward without the other tower. mosher is totally off base on this one.

I'm moving away from Halifax again, this kind of news is BS.

sdm · #52 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

wtf!

seriously, the first one is already built... the site would look awkward without the other tower. mosher is totally off base on this one.

I'm moving away from Halifax again, this kind of news is BS.

I would think they would want to promote density and job creation in that area.

kph06 · #53 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 6:14 PM**

View-planes????

Are you kidding me? What historic view planes are out there? Secondly if this crucial view plane does exist, the first building doesn't encroach on it?

Keith P. · #54 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kph06

View-planes????

Are you kidding me? What historic view planes are out there? Secondly if this crucial view plane does exist, the first building doesn't encroach on it?

She is clueless as usual. She is using the term "view plane" instead of "view", I can only presume. I base that upon some interviews I saw on the news the other night where nearby residents were complaining that a second tower would change the look of the area for the worse. But who knows...

God forbid that someone comes along and wants to develop a piece of scrubland in the burbs to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in new tax revenue.

Barrington south · #55 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 7:07 PM**

I'm not a huge fan of this building(s)...reminds me of an old fashioned 1950's Slab with a couple of curved add ons on the roof to try and break up the monolithic nature of the building

someone123 · #56 Posted **Jan 7, 2009, 8:00 PM**

I guess this is NIMBY central since it happens to fall within Armdale, but really it's off of NW Arm Drive and is pretty much Clayton Park. Plenty of 10-12 storey towers have gone up or are going up in this corner of the city.

As for wind and shadow, those just sound like excuses. The fact is that they would have prepared these studies and presented them to the community council, so what exactly is the problem? Tornadoes are going to spawn and take out that car wash shack 100 m away?

Jonovision · #57 Posted **Jan 25, 2009, 4:58 PM**

The crane on site is finally coming down today.
One can hope that it will be up soon enough for tower 2.

sdm · #58 Posted **Jan 26, 2009, 1:21 PM**

News out today in allnovascotia that HRM is now appealing the UARB decision on the second tower.
States the developer was going to start in May, however with this appeal it can't proceed.
Whats with this city.

dartmouthian · #59 Posted **Jan 26, 2009, 3:18 PM**

what..................................THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?!?
just when you think its over.

Dmajackson · #60 Posted **Jan 26, 2009, 7:26 PM**

WTF!?! Okay so seriously where can we build? HRM is against building downtown and now is against building something tall in the suburbs!

No wonder Burnside is so big. We can't build tall in it but we also cant build tall anywheres else. Heck, 12 floors isn't even that tall. Its shorter than that ugly red brick diseased building on the Bedford Highway.

EDIT: Seeing the absudity of this decision by HRM I emailed the local councillor for the Waterton area (lmosher@halifax.ca) and I urge everyone to also email her with your opinions.