[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C - Page 2

halifaxboyns · #21 Posted **Aug 23, 2011, 4:10 PM**

It's interesting that the took comments from the forum. It's good to have a healthy debate about this...and I do agree with KeithP's main comment that the plan and policy didn't take this sort of thing into account.

I just can't get over the location issue for me. If cogswell was reconfigured and it was there, I wouldn't have any objection to it. But for me...it just doesn't seem to fit well where it is and I can't seem to get past that.

Empire · #22 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by q12

I see Keith P. was quoted on their site!

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz/item/...tions-to-rules

More interesting opinions in "The Buzz":

http://skyehalifax.ca/the-buzz

Keith P. great piece.

Here is another good take on negative HRM.

=====================================
" If it was left to Peter McCurdy (July 25 letter), we'd still be living in grass and mud huts. Mr. McCurdy refers to the "traditions of our ancestors." Our ancestors built and made their lives better. They were daring, fearless innovators. Our ancestors did not sit on their behinds complaining.

That's the problem with Halifax.

Nobody here wants to see Halifax grow. Our ancestors' spirit is gone. Anything out of the ordinary - cancel it. Buildings are too tall. Can't see the harbour from the Citadel. Mardi-Gras? Cancelled. Why? A couple of drunks.

Grand-Prix? Cancelled. A few complaints about the noise. Commonwealth Games? Cancel. Stadium? Cancel.

We have an inept council and mayor who waste their time on parking bans and cat licences. Why is that? Is it because we have too many old people living here? Doesn't anybody want our next generation to live in a thriving, modern city?

Thank God we still have a few developers here who have a vision for the Halifax of the future. They're innovators, just like our ancestors used to be."

Andre Daoust, Halifax

Empire · #23 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

It's interesting that the took comments from the forum. It's good to have a healthy debate about this...and I do agree with KeithP's main comment that the plan and policy didn't take this sort of thing into account.

I just can't get over the location issue for me. If cogswell was reconfigured and it was there, I wouldn't have any objection to it. But for me...it just doesn't seem to fit well where it is and I can't seem to get past that.

I tend to agree that for this height the Cogswell Interchange would be a better fit. The problem with the Interchance is that it will be 10 years before it will be decommissioned. Once it is decommissioned the available land just isn't there. In addition when the street system is reconfigured at Cogswell there will be traffic chaos/gridlock. A large, low, sprawling convention centre or MCII would never fit on that site.

Keith P. · #24 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 1:56 AM**

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill...

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

fenwick16 · #25 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill...

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

I actually support most of your views.

beyeas · #26 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Geez, maybe I should send them a bill...

At least they seem to appreciate some of my opinions. Others here have not been so kind and the mods have inexplicably supported their attacks on me. Shameful, and shocking for what is typically a very well-run place.

Meh... sometimes you and I agree completely on topics, sometimes we completely don't. Funny enough, ever since we had our last spat I have actually found that for some reason we are agreeing in our views more than not. LOL

I did however specifically post about congratulating you on getting cited because I think that is pretty cool. That posting was a great example of a well reasoned factual argument, so I am not surprised they quoted it. I tell you when I disagree, so I am also telling you when I agree! *GRIN*

Joking aside, I do agree as well with Halifaxboyns that I find it difficult to get behind this specific project, but all the same your point totally stands that rules exist to be adapted and change with the times.

Genuine congrats on having a positive impact through that posting KeithP.

TheNovaScotian · #27 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 1:38 PM**

I agree as well, its nice to see people on this site making an impact
I can't agree with other peoples opinion about Cogswell being a better site, this building would look good where it is situated.
I feel the Cogswell interchange is the best view of the Citadel from Dartmouth, not that I'm saying I'm against tearing it down and redeveloping it. I'm just saying good architecture could help keep some vantage points.

Jstaleness · #28 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:02 PM**

No matter whether this seems too good to be true or not I can't help but get excited. It is the first time someone has even ever proposed such a height for downtown or region. I agree the renderings could use some work to really build on that excitement. Like Fenwick mentioned though, these could be the new Purdy's Wharf and the face for postcards featuring Halifax. Keith was right. It would be very difficult to play the same rules when it comes to approving this. HRMbD needs a few tweaks anyway so maybe now is the time to allow for something "extraordinary" in the rule books. The investment is huge and should not be ignored.

I'm not sure if HRMbD takes into consideration a projects economic spinoffs or if it's related only to size and community.

Jonovision · #29 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:06 PM**

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

halifaxboyns · #30 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:43 PM**

One of the benefits of tall buildings is that you can put way more units into it. Because the downtown core of Halifax doesn't have a density cap; your population is virtually anything you want (subject of course to the site services being able to accommodate what you hope to have).

The added 'work' for the developer is that you then have to sell more units. So it's good and bad.

The rules themselves can be changed easily if council chooses to do so. It's a matter of a text amendment to the Peninsula Bylaw, the Planning Strategy and the maps if I'm not mistaken.

The proof, as they say, will be in the application. So far, there is no case file for this - that doesn't mean there isn't, but there is no formal information online. But until I see this going forward as an actual application I still remain doubtful.

Jstaleness · #31 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:49 PM**

If the units are going to sell for only 150 000 selling them shouldn't be that difficult. Over looking the harbour or Citidel at that price is a steal.

sdm · #32 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

$150K for what size unit? I could sell units for 80k if they are only 200 square feet.

worldlyhaligonian · #33 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I met with the developers last week. Told them about the site and said they should keep an eye on it. That's probably why your bit got put up Keith P. Hope you guys don't mind. They just want to know that people are talking about it. I'll admit, before meeting with them, I was on the fence. But getting some of the numbers and talking with them. I am now in full support of this development.

The reasoning behind the height is to allow for more affordable units. The condos in here will start at $150,000. Much more affordable then buildings like the Trillium. And in order to make it economically feasible they needed more units. Hence the 48 stories.

Thanks for the info Jono, this is really interesting. Depending on the condo fees, I would definitely look into something in the $150-200 range. It would put alot of middle class people downtown... which is what the city really needs.

Jstaleness · #34 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It would put alot of middle class people downtown... which is what the city really needs.

Thus boosting the downtown shopping experience. Not everything downtown needs to be high-end stores. Another drugstore and some sort of grocery market would be welcome on Barrington St.

halifaxboyns · #35 Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 9:27 PM**

I would suspect you'd probably see the bachelors around 450 square feet at maybe $120 to $150k range. Then a one bedroom in the 750 square foot $150k and up. The two bedrooms (based on typical market size) now adays run between 950 to 1200 square feet and that's where you'd break the $200k mark. Three bedrooms will probably be $275k and up - that's been the typical range I've seen in the maritime markets.

Haliwood · #36 Posted **Sep 12, 2011, 6:55 PM**

Sign guys:

http://www.skyehalifax.ca/sign-for-support#signpetition

Chadillaccc · #37 Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 2:59 AM**

Nothing going on with these beasts yet?

RyeJay · #38 Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Nothing going on with these beasts yet?

Nothing, as far as I know.

I'm still trying to make some noise about this proposal. Like others on this forum, I've signed the petition and have written councillors.

Some people believe this proposal is DOA--but there is a surprisingly high level of support for this to be approved.

Chadillaccc · #39 Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 8:08 AM**

Well that's great to hear. Would love to see Halifax get a nice new icon over 100 meters. Has anyone discussed the option of reworking the design in order to appease the naysayers?

Nouvellecosse · #40 Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 9:25 AM**

Reworking as in chopping off 35-40 stories? I suspect thats the only way to satisfy many of the naysayers.