[Halifax] 5495 Spring Garden Road | ? m | 4 fl | Completed

[fenwick16]

Good point, Beyeas. The developers should be working together. At least he stated that the Nova Centre was a special case which he seems to support. I mainly agree with his point about increasing residential in the downtown. I would like to see the International Place become a mixed retail/residential/hotel/office so that it has more chance of proceeding in the near future.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by sdm

I think he is talking International Place, Roy Building, and Nova Centre office. Waterside is in no way a large scale office project at 80,000 sqft.

Regardless, I think he could have made his point by simply pointing out the benefits of not focussing exclusively on large scale projects, rather than calling tall scale office buildings irrelevant dinosaurs, thereby giving ammunition to STV/HT.

Like I said, he is to be congratulated for having moved his own projects forward, but I think it is cheap to then publicly do so by putting own others. Worthwhile achievements stand on their own without having to be seen in the context of negativity towards others.

[Northend Guy]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Like I said, he is to be congratulated for having moved his own projects forward, but I think it is cheap to then publicly do so by putting own others. Worthwhile achievements stand on their own without having to be seen in the context of negativity towards others.

I agree. Both with you and with Chedrawe. With Chedrawe in that I also believe that the current proposals for large scale office towers have some feasibilty issues. I don't think the economics make sense. I also think that SOME of the developers of these projects do have their heads in the sand (from experience in dealing with them on other jobs). I think that several of them will not get financing and will be redesigned - hopefully as large scale residential projects, which I think is absolutely feasible.

I do agree with you though in that the Chronicle Herald is certainly not the best forum to make statements like that. It turns people off. It gives fodder to anti-develoment groups because they will take his words and twist them to their own ends so that this:
'Large-scale, single-use office towers are irrelevant today, they are irrelevant in the future and these people are dreaming in the past. We need property owners in the downtown to focus on what’s relevant to today and tomorrow and that is smaller-scale office buildings, more mixed-use buildings and a ton more residential'.
Becomes this:
'Large-scale, single-use office towers are irrelevant today, they are irrelevant in the future and these people are dreaming. We need property owners in the downtown to focus on what’s relevant to today and tomorrow and that is smaller-scale buildings.
I shudder at the thought of how this will be presented by the anti-development factions in the next couple of months.

[someone123]

Keep in mind that many of these office proposals came out in around 2008 when the office market was much stronger downtown and financing was easier to come by. It's also possible that the downtown market will improve over time (some are predicting this). The office market downtown is not even remotely as dire as people are making it out to be - something I really dislike about the media in Halifax. They're very negative and permit obviously misleading statements like "there hasn't been a development downtown in 20 years".

I agree however that small-scale projects are really lacking in the old downtown core area and these could make a huge difference. Residential proposals specifically are also missing. A strong downtown core would have population densities similar to the Spring Garden Road area and would have 24-hour services, urban format grocery stores, etc. It would be a much better place for everybody - residents, visitors, and office workers.

[halifaxboyns]

I would guess that the accident today would make this building easier to come down in 2011 to proceed with development. LOL

Sorry bad joke.

Someone is correct - more residential density in the main core will be helpful for those businesses there. Personally, I'd be happy to live in Trillium or anything near Spring Garden Road. When I lived at 1881 Brunswick, I walked everywhere. I know people who live in Bishop's Landing; they do the same. We just haven't reached that critical population level yet - that's especially true on the Dartmouth side too.

I've been trying to find population numbers, but I've been unable to find any. What is the current Halifax core population? Does anyone know? I also agree with how the media has portrayed the issue of the office demand. But it doesn't help that HRM (like most city) has zoning rules and tax regimes in place that really helps out suburban office development, versus focusing things back into the core. Personally, I think the only way to really deal with the traffic issue (into the core) is to still have the downtown core as the primary focus of office development, but some suburban offices. But we'd need to make sure that downtown core office space (gross) is always the strongest.

I know someone (not someone123 lol) mentioned that as older office buildings are 'vacated' they could become something different. A great example is the Raddison near Reflections caberet. I wonder if the office tower NSP is vacating in SS could be converted into residential? Certainly it could become another hotel though couldn't it? If Barrington tower converted to residential - that would add quite a few units right in the central core. Imagine the commute - you'd be indoors, grab your coffee, wander through the pedways and there you are at work!

[DigitalNinja]

I like how the woman in the SUV was texting and "Lost control" In other words looked up from her lap and saw that she was heading for a building.

I've read in the article that the damage to the building has severely compromised the structure perhaps they may just choose to bring the building down shortly...

Poor girl though.

[fenwick16]

Here a link to the article - http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9018891.html .

In Ontario, there are stiff fines for using a cell phone while driving.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I wonder if the office tower NSP is vacating in SS could be converted into residential? Certainly it could become another hotel though couldn't it? If Barrington tower converted to residential - that would add quite a few units right in the central core. Imagine the commute - you'd be indoors, grab your coffee, wander through the pedways and there you are at work!

I think its a great idea... put an urban format grocery store in Scotia Square and convert one of the towers to residential. It would be a cool little world, you could probably live in there and not even go outside if u worked in the other tower... there's even a Tim Horton's in SS!

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think its a great idea... put an urban format grocery store in Scotia Square and convert one of the towers to residential. It would be a cool little world, you could probably live in there and not even go outside if u worked in the other tower... there's even a Tim Horton's in SS!

There was a 'sobeys' light (or something like that) in there ages ago, when I used to work for Aliant. Because residential numbers were so low in the downtown, it failed miserably. It was at the end of the food court, but I think it would do well.
Would be great to have a whole foods there - be a great introduction to the east coast!

I wonder if they could modify the building to add balconies?

[JustinMacD]

I hope the poor girl that was pinned between the SUV and store sues that stupid f*cking driver for everything they've got.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

There was a 'sobeys' light (or something like that) in there ages ago, when I used to work for Aliant. Because residential numbers were so low in the downtown, it failed miserably. It was at the end of the food court, but I think it would do well.
Would be great to have a whole foods there - be a great introduction to the east coast!

I've seen a few interesting statistics over the years about how many people it takes to support different retail, grocery stores, etc. One figure was a 20,000-30,000 person catchment area for a 30,000-50,000 square foot grocery store.

I think the downtown Pete's is in the 35,000 square feet range.

There was another really interesting study where they looked at the number of people required to support "main street" type retail. It was something like 2,000 local full-time residents for frontage on one side of one block (perhaps something like 200 m on one side of a street). Of course, like the grocery store example, it's often much more complicated than this since the area served by stores varies. People are not going to drive in from Dartmouth to go to a Sobeys but they might come in for a unique store. The numbers given were an attempt to reflect pure local retail demand for all kinds of stores on average.

These numbers really put things like Pacey's seven storey limit into perspective. If we want to have grocery stores around Barrington or fill in a block or two of retail on Barrington or Gottingen we need to add thousands of units in a small area. Not going to happen without highrises somewhere.

If we really want a bustling downtown the best way to do it is to add perhaps 6,000 new residents below Brunswick Street. This means maybe 2,500 new housing units in maybe a dozen new highrises, a bunch of lowrise buildings, and some renovated heritage buildings. After this people wouldn't be wondering what can be done to "fix" Barrington because there would be retail demand and the problem would fix itself. The city would also rake in money from this because assessments are high in this area and servicing costs are low.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I've seen a few interesting statistics over the years about how many people it takes to support different retail, grocery stores, etc. One figure was a 20,000-30,000 person catchment area for a 30,000-50,000 square foot grocery store.

I think the downtown Pete's is in the 35,000 square feet range.

There was another really interesting study where they looked at the number of people required to support "main street" type retail. It was something like 2,000 local full-time residents for frontage on one side of one block (perhaps something like 200 m on one side of a street). Of course, like the grocery store example, it's often much more complicated than this since the area served by stores varies. People are not going to drive in from Dartmouth to go to a Sobeys but they might come in for a unique store. The numbers given were an attempt to reflect pure local retail demand for all kinds of stores on average.

These numbers really put things like Pacey's seven storey limit into perspective. If we want to have grocery stores around Barrington or fill in a block or two of retail on Barrington or Gottingen we need to add thousands of units in a small area. Not going to happen without highrises somewhere.

If we really want a bustling downtown the best way to do it is to add perhaps 6,000 new residents below Brunswick Street. This means maybe 2,500 new housing units in maybe a dozen new highrises, a bunch of lowrise buildings, and some renovated heritage buildings. After this people wouldn't be wondering what can be done to "fix" Barrington because there would be retail demand and the problem would fix itself. The city would also rake in money from this because assessments are high in this area and servicing costs are low.

Exactly, and if Nova Centre and some of the residential get built, I think Barrington will have a revival.

The proposal for the old Discovery Centre would definitely help that area, as would the Alexander and the Roy Building.

[halifaxboyns]

Part of the problem also comes from having such a low 'high density' in the core. I've never understood why it's 250 persons per acre, versus 250 units; but when I did the numbers it all worked out in the end.

But still; even if you go with units for per acre, 250 is still rather low for high density. If you are really going to encourage a high density then it should be a range. Most of the 'high' density districts in the Calgary LUB don't set a maximum density - they use floor area ratio. So if you have a 25000 square foot lot with an FAR of 7; you can build 7x25000 square feet (taking into account setbacks, building height etc). So for much of the downtown and Beltline, there are no density rules - just FAR and floor plate restrictions once you reach a certain height (to break up massing and reduce impacts of shadow).

In HRM - I'd like to see the number shoot up a lot. Minimum 400 persons versus 250. That should help.

The other thing about downtown (for Halifax) is I think that if you add more people in the south end, Agricola and along Gottingen Street - there will be a tendancy for a good proportion of them to come into downtown because it's within easy walking distance. So if you add more people to downtown and the surrounding areas - chances are good that the core will benefit.

If I look at all the old buildings near the Sobeys on queen street - around Fenwick; I think that project (once approved) will kick off some reinvestment in that area. Based on the viewplane height and recent buildings, I'm guessing that most of the buildings could be in the 7 to 10 storey range - which works out well. Take down a whole bunch of the old 8 unit buildings, consolidate parcels and you can add more units too. But I don't think the fix has to be only below Brunswick Street - I lived at 1881 Brunswick and I shopped at stores all over (Quinpool/Agricola, Dartmouth).

[someone123]

Density is a red herring. The worry dates back to an era when they were dealing with slum clearances and overcrowding -- these areas were densely populated so they wrongly assume that dense population is bad. Poverty was the real problem and they never solved it when they built developments like Uniacke Square, even though those are not as densely populated as what they replaced.

Unfortunately people often don't look at these issues very clearly and Halifax probably also has a lot of ancient planning rules that are just there because they haven't been reviewed.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Density is a red herring. The worry dates back to an era when they were dealing with slum clearances and overcrowding -- these areas were densely populated so they wrongly assume that dense population is bad. Poverty was the real problem and they never solved it when they built developments like Uniacke Square, even though those are not as densely populated as what they replaced.

Unfortunately people often don't look at these issues very clearly and Halifax probably also has a lot of ancient planning rules that are just there because they haven't been reviewed.

I'd agree with that. Uniacke Square is such a sad situation - I really don't know how to fix that.

But it would seem to me to be logical that when the new regional plan is necessary - they should also begin the process to consolidate the 23 (or more now) land use bylaws into 1 or 2. One for the urban area and one for the rural area.

[Jonovision]

Public Information tonight at Second Cup on SG.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
DOWNTOWN HALIFAX
A public open house will be held on Monday, December 6, 2010 between 6:00 and 9:00 pm, at Second
Cup, 5435 Spring Garden Road, Halifax, to present information on the following development proposal:
File No. 16529: Pre-application by Westwood Developments Ltd. for a new retail/office building at
5489-91 and 5495 Spring Garden Road and 1515 Birmingham Street through the site plan approval
process for Downtown Halifax.
Representatives of Westwood Developments Ltd. will be present at the public open house to discuss the
proposal and to answer questions from the public.
The meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend to seek information about the proposal and/or
express any comments which they may have.
For further information, please contact Westwood Developments Ltd. at (902) 425-7500 or visit:
http://www.westwoodgroup.ca/property...ng-garden-road

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

Density is a red herring. The worry dates back to an era when they were dealing with slum clearances and overcrowding -- these areas were densely populated so they wrongly assume that dense population is bad. Poverty was the real problem and they never solved it when they built developments like Uniacke Square, even though those are not as densely populated as what they replaced.

Unfortunately people often don't look at these issues very clearly and Halifax probably also has a lot of ancient planning rules that are just there because they haven't been reviewed.

Poverty is also a bit of a Red Herring (ps, anyone remember the Red Herring Bookstore?) The real issue is the situation that results by not having a mix of housing with a mix of income. Creating communities that have a mix works, disparity only breeds disparity. If Uniacke was replaced by mixed housing then hopefully many of the issues would lessen. Uniacke is not dense housing, but the poverty there is dense.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

Poverty is also a bit of a Red Herring (ps, anyone remember the Red Herring Bookstore?) The real issue is the situation that results by not having a mix of housing with a mix of income. Creating communities that have a mix works, disparity only breeds disparity. If Uniacke was replaced by mixed housing then hopefully many of the issues would lessen. Uniacke is not dense housing, but the poverty there is dense.

I was looking at this from the perspective of social development and helping the people in those situations (vs "cleaning up a neighbourhood", which is about land instead of people -- in many Vancouver neighbourhoods for example they just push out the homeless, replace them with high-end condos, and declare victory). Mixed housing seems to help but there is a greater picture. The poorest people still need access to education, health care, jobs, and so on, and sometimes these aren't available even if they are located right next door. This can be particularly true if you are some kind of minority or have disabilities. Some concrete social problems like teenage pregnancy or drug use clearly are not just a matter of people living in the wrong kind of housing.

Good housing is certainly important and a well-planned neighbourhood makes it much easier to provide services but I think back in the 60s there was too much of a tendency to think that problems could be fixed with planning.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Public Information tonight at Second Cup on SG.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
DOWNTOWN HALIFAX
A public open house will be held on Monday, December 6, 2010 between 6:00 and 9:00 pm, at Second
Cup, 5435 Spring Garden Road, Halifax, to present information on the following development proposal:
File No. 16529: Pre-application by Westwood Developments Ltd. for a new retail/office building at
5489-91 and 5495 Spring Garden Road and 1515 Birmingham Street through the site plan approval
process for Downtown Halifax.
Representatives of Westwood Developments Ltd. will be present at the public open house to discuss the
proposal and to answer questions from the public.
The meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend to seek information about the proposal and/or
express any comments which they may have.
For further information, please contact Westwood Developments Ltd. at (902) 425-7500 or visit:
http://www.westwoodgroup.ca/property...ng-garden-road

Can anyone confirm that they are going to this tonight? I can't see a whole lot of negative from this.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

Can anyone confirm that they are going to this tonight? I can't see a whole lot of negative from this.

I was hoping to go but I had to go out town so I couldn't make it back in time.

I think the HT will find something negative to say. Maybe something like this is too modern. Change the glass to brick and we'll accept it.