HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2021, 4:01 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,521
[Halifax] 6189 Young Street | 25 m | 9 fl | Proposed

New proposal by WM Fares for a 9-storey / 58 unit residential building with ground floor commercial at 6189 Young Street, Halifax. This is currently occupied by a one-storey commercial building housing a tattoo parlour and furniture store. The Design Advisory Committee will be discussing the project at their meeting next week.

Case # 23031: Level III Site Plan Approval Application for 6189-6191 Young Street, Halifax, N.S. (PID 00153098)
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2021, 10:22 AM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
New proposal by WM Fares for a 9-storey / 58 unit residential building with ground floor commercial at 6189 Young Street, Halifax. This is currently occupied by a one-storey commercial building housing a tattoo parlour and furniture store. The Design Advisory Committee will be discussing the project at their meeting next week.

Case # 23031: Level III Site Plan Approval Application for 6189-6191 Young Street, Halifax, N.S. (PID 00153098)
This area’s really filling up nicely.
__________________
Haligonian in exile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2021, 3:45 PM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 899
I like the wall on the side it looks quite interesting rather than just one color, hopefully it will turn out that way.

Hopefully the development proposed for the old DND grounds gets approved soon. Either than that the other other development spot on Young would be 6176 across from this one which appears to be a 2 story office building. No idea what business is in there though.

I can't see the forum parking lot being developed at least any time soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2021, 4:52 PM
RyNyeScienceGuy RyNyeScienceGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 2
It’s pretty funny how the renderings show the surroundings of the project as a forest.

Hopefully this one will get started around the same time as the 3 building proposal on Young & Windsor as well as the Forum renovation plan. Haven’t heard any updates on those in awhile though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2021, 6:01 PM
TheNovaScotian's Avatar
TheNovaScotian TheNovaScotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 208
So one of the few areas designated for up to 90M is getting a building 25M tall.
That's wonderful, really maximizing the limited spaces we have on the peninsula......
At least we know the planning department have succeeded in beating the notion into developers heads that short buildings get approved quickly and developing tall buildings here is not worth the hassle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2021, 6:35 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian View Post
So one of the few areas designated for up to 90M is getting a building 25M tall.
Does this area have a FAR limit? It may be less practical to build a 90 m building on a small lot like this.

I think it's a pretty good proposal. It looks like a building that can eventually be a part of an urban streetscape, even though right now it's being built in a wasteland of empty lots and strip malls.

I wish there would be a bit more care put into the lower 3-4 floors of these buildings, and that the blank wall of glass were less common. Queen's Marque managed to do something a little different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2021, 6:55 PM
Querce Querce is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 109
Max FAR on this lot is 8.0, which could get pretty tall if the lot was bigger and larger setbacks were possible
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2021, 10:02 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian View Post
So one of the few areas designated for up to 90M is getting a building 25M tall.
That's wonderful, really maximizing the limited spaces we have on the peninsula......
At least we know the planning department have succeeded in beating the notion into developers heads that short buildings get approved quickly and developing tall buildings here is not worth the hassle.
I think it's the FAR limit that's doing this - if the developer wanted 90m height, they'd have to reduce the footprint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 12:53 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian View Post
So one of the few areas designated for up to 90M is getting a building 25M tall.
That's wonderful, really maximizing the limited spaces we have on the peninsula......
At least we know the planning department have succeeded in beating the notion into developers heads that short buildings get approved quickly and developing tall buildings here is not worth the hassle.
Well, when there is no land left on the peninsula... things will have to change.

The idea that this centre plan is set in stone forever is not true.

It may be seen as a success in terms of getting things approved... yet, it would seem that even buildings that meet the requirements are subject to the court of public opinion. This being said, the plans will have to grow with the city and so will the mentality of people.

When there is no land left, there won't be a choice to build squat buildings.

Is the one for the corner lot of Windsor / Young grandfathered in? Or will it too become a victim of the height phobia or ridiculous limits imposed in this area?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 1:03 AM
mleblanc mleblanc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Is the one for the corner lot of Windsor / Young grandfathered in? Or will it too become a victim of the height phobia or ridiculous limits imposed in this area?
I was wondering that as well. Latest update on that site was I believe 6 years ago? IIRC, same company that is behind the 32-storey mystery tower by the Armdale roundabout. Doesn't leave me with much hope.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 2:01 AM
TheNovaScotian's Avatar
TheNovaScotian TheNovaScotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I think it's the FAR limit that's doing this - if the developer wanted 90m height, they'd have to reduce the footprint.
Ahh yes, yet another layer of height restrictions baked into the Centre Plan. How much difference of the quality of life in a city does this formula really have?

Honestly, I've looked high and low for a peer reviewed study of the efficacy of FAR with quantifiable data showing the benefits. If it's a formula that touches untold aspects of billions of peoples day to day lives, why is it not based on any statistical analysis? Urban planning mistakes can destroy communities and the lives of the people that live there. The decision they make shouldn't be based off dogma or long standing notions but facts and data.

If any planners among us have access to one that is available publicly or otherwise, I would be in your debt. I've been researching it for awhile now since studying it in school and would love any additional information if someone is aware of it, I'd just like to understand it better and why no one seems to question it.


I agree, WordlyHaligonian, my fear is that we're going to lose a lot of heritage properties before they catch on.

Last edited by TheNovaScotian; Apr 12, 2021 at 2:10 AM. Reason: punctuation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 3:22 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 404
Before worrying about how high the site could potentially be, it’s worth noting a lot of the new 40+ storey buildings you see in the GTA are packed with 300 square foot investorboxes. Rampant land values there mean it’s difficult for a developer to recoup their investment otherwise. You could say it’s somewhat of a blessing we don’t have the demand for such buildings.
__________________
Haligonian in exile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 4:34 PM
RyNyeScienceGuy RyNyeScienceGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Baklava View Post
Before worrying about how high the site could potentially be, it’s worth noting a lot of the new 40+ storey buildings you see in the GTA are packed with 300 square foot investorboxes. Rampant land values there mean it’s difficult for a developer to recoup their investment otherwise. You could say it’s somewhat of a blessing we don’t have the demand for such buildings.
What’s an investorbox?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 4:47 PM
Good Baklava's Avatar
Good Baklava Good Baklava is offline
Somewhat Pretentious
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyNyeScienceGuy View Post
What’s an investorbox?
It’s just to poke fun at properties that clearly aren’t meant to be anyone’s primary residence, or that lack some sense of adequacy.
__________________
Haligonian in exile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 5:15 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,004
Yeah looks like it's the FAR that's capping them, since they're pretty much at 100% lot coverage. That being said, I don't see how you could realistically go much higher on a site of that size. You'd have to start going really deep to accommodate enough parking.

A FAR of 8.0 is quite high for a normal site. For example Fenwick Tower only had a FAR of somewhere in the range of 4.5 prior to the development of the new buildings on the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 3:16 AM
Takeo Takeo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalNinja View Post
Either than that the other other development spot on Young would be 6176 across from this one which appears to be a 2 story office building. No idea what business is in there though.

I can't see the forum parking lot being developed at least any time soon.
The 2 story building beside Monaghan is government I believe.

The Forum redevelopment master plan has the north parking lot being redeveloped as… a parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 4:53 PM
TheNovaScotian's Avatar
TheNovaScotian TheNovaScotian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
Yeah looks like it's the FAR that's capping them, since they're pretty much at 100% lot coverage. That being said, I don't see how you could realistically go much higher on a site of that size. You'd have to start going really deep to accommodate enough parking.



A FAR of 8.0 is quite high for a normal site. For example Fenwick Tower only had a FAR of somewhere in the range of 4.5 prior to the development of the new buildings on the site.
I must admit when I seen the case include two PID#'s I thought this was including the NSPI lands to the north east. On a site this small, its design is understandable but still a lost opportunity.
The point of contention is that within the small areas that permit anything over 27 stories on the peninsula, there are not many super blocks. Most PID's in the red have too small of a footprint to ever achieve a FAR that tests that limit. Unless the planning department anticipates consolidation and demolition of these areas, achieving the highest allowable building would be quite difficult.

If Fenwick is the example why FAR should be used, I'm worried. I'm currently looking at the eyesore as I type this. I can say with certainty the giant sore thumb that should be clustered with other buildings its size instead will remain a obelisk forever defining the south end skyline thanks to a 26m height restriction surrounding it. From what I'm seeing Fenwick couldn't be built if proposed today though it previously had a FAR of 4.5 .
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.