International Place | ? m | 22 fl | On Hold

[worldlyhaligonian]

My bad, I thought it said January 8th, 2009.

Are they looking for tennants still? I'm still optimistic because its Empire.

[someone123]

There are a number of developments in Halifax that were built after a year or two of silence.

The big issue I see with this development is that there is now a ton of office space proposed for Halifax. The NSP conversion and Waterside Centre are already under construction and are probably 100-200,000 sq. ft of space. Add in the Roy Building, TD, and IP, and it's unlikely that there will be demand to fill these buildings. Then again, it might not be bad to see a glut of space downtown; this is better than having low vacancy but timid developers.

[Jstaleness]

The more space available the more Choice large companies have when selecting a site to do their business. Certainly beats being forced into the only place available.

[mcmcclassic]

I found this interesting little piece of information off of the Waterside Building's website. To quote Armour Group:

◦Waterside Centre adds approximately 80,000 square feet of additional Class “A” Commercial Office space in the downtown core. According to recent figures provided by NSBI there is a need for 1.3 million square feet of Class “A” space over the next five years.

Based on that, IP's office space would be used up even with the other developments (assuming that TD, Roy, etc don't create more than 1.3 million sq. ft of space).

[ScovaNotian]

There is a document that mentions International Place here: http://www.cbre.ca/NR/rdonlyres/B197...on2010_Web.pdf . Singling out Waterside, International Place, and the convention centre, it says "We expect that all of these will require healthy pre-leasing before the trigger is pulled, but we hear there is progress on that front. Stay tuned." Also mentioned are BMO and RBC, which seem to be looking for downtown office space. Wasn't there mentioning of a makeover of the RBC tower at some point?

[worldlyhaligonian]

That document is amazing.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I wonder if anything has been leased for this development... Empire should at least have some of their own offices in there.

Are companies literally being turned away from Halifax due to lack of high quality office developments?

Is this a "build it and they will come" scenario?

[Jonovision]

I've heard that this is still a few years before we see this one go up. I think someone said 2013.

[josh_cat_eyes]

I like these renderings better then the other ones. Its going to be a beautiful building if they build it though!!! I think that if they were to build this building that they could fill it though. It's a lot easier to convince someone to sign a lease agreement for something physical then something in a picture or on paper.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I prefer the new flat iron inspired design... its glass will look better up against purdy's i & ii

[someone123]

The old design would have been okay but looks like it is from 1990.

[halifaxboyns]

I wanted to change my original comment.

I honestly have to say I could take either design and be happy with it. I like the design which josh_cat_eyes is showing; but i also like the iron/steel/glass version too.

It seems to me the one shown above fits in better in terms with the colour scheme and materials of Scotia Square than the modern design; but nothing wrong with the modern design too since twisted sisters will be similar.

[fenwick16]

I actually like the old design better. It has more architectural features than the new design. The new design looks quite plain to me, other than it overall shape which is unique.

One thing that has occurred to me is that these designs might not be acceptable under the HRM by Design guidelines. Although they are allowed the height, I don't know if they have all the mandated setbacks (I really dislike the fact the the HRM by Design states how buildings must be designed).

This is a very impressive building in my opinion. I wish people would stop referring to this as a 80's or 90's design. Can't people just like or dislike the design based on its on merits?

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I actually like the old design better. It has more architectural features than the new design. The new design looks quite plain to me, other than it overall shape which is unique.

One thing that has occurred to me is that these designs might not be acceptable under the HRM by Design guidelines. Although they are allowed the height, I don't know if they have all the mandated setbacks (I really dislike the fact the the HRM by Design states how buildings must be designed).

This is a very impressive building in my opinion. I wish people would stop referring to this as a 80's or 90's design. Can't people just like or dislike the design based on its on merits?

I still love the very modern new design, but this older iteration is growing on me. Fenwick has pointed out that it has some great architectural detailing. I especially like the street level features on its podium. The only thing I would say is get rid of the pointy "hat". I really dislike hipped roofs on towers. Not a fan of it in the TD reno either. IMO this is the element that most makes it look like a 90's throwback. I wouldn't mind a dome on this version of IP, one that echos the dome lower down that appears to join IP into Granville Mall.

[JET]

I Like the draw-bridge over the front entry. Too bad that the view of it will be blocked by the ramp/street. jet

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by JET

I Like the draw-bridge over the front entry. Too bad that the view of it will be blocked by the ramp/street. jet

I agree - I love those features. They are quite common in Vancouver as a way of trying to protect pedestrians from the elements.
I'd like to see them become more common in Halifax; I think they would fun!

As to your comment Fenwick; about the wall heights - that's the difficulty with form based zoning code. Unlike typical zoning which creates 'the box'; form based further defines 'the box' to things like street wall heights and additional design elements.

In a sense; I'd rather people just go through the DA process. But that takes a long time. One of the fun things about Alberta's system of discretionary uses; is that we can use policy to help push the design when policy has specific requirements. That's not the case in a zoning system; unless Nova Scotia starts adopting a Conditional Use type of system; which I don't recommend. There are enough appeals now!

But wouldn't the fact the DA has already been approved not really matter? If this has been approved; it received approval before HbD was passed; so it is 'grandfathered'?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I agree - I love those features. They are quite common in Vancouver as a way of trying to protect pedestrians from the elements.
I'd like to see them become more common in Halifax; I think they would fun!

As to your comment Fenwick; about the wall heights - that's the difficulty with form based zoning code. Unlike typical zoning which creates 'the box'; form based further defines 'the box' to things like street wall heights and additional design elements.

In a sense; I'd rather people just go through the DA process. But that takes a long time. One of the fun things about Alberta's system of discretionary uses; is that we can use policy to help push the design when policy has specific requirements. That's not the case in a zoning system; unless Nova Scotia starts adopting a Conditional Use type of system; which I don't recommend. There are enough appeals now!

But wouldn't the fact the DA has already been approved not really matter? If this has been approved; it received approval before HbD was passed; so it is 'grandfathered'?

Basically the site is permitted a development of this height as the site was given to Crombie as part of their agreement when developing Barrington Place Mall for reducing the height of it. Therefore in lieu of the reduced economics on the Barrington Place development, the council at the time allowed an as of right development of a 22 storey office building.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

Basically the site is permitted a development of this height as the site was given to Crombie as part of their agreement when developing Barrington Place Mall for reducing the height of it. Therefore in lieu of the reduced economics on the Barrington Place development, the council at the time allowed an as of right development of a 22 storey office building.

Oh so this would just go through a development permit versus a DA and then DP?

The reason I ask is because if it went through and already obtained a development permit; the permit would likely have expired by now. A DA might be a different story.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I agree - I love those features. They are quite common in Vancouver as a way of trying to protect pedestrians from the elements.
I'd like to see them become more common in Halifax; I think they would fun!

As to your comment Fenwick; about the wall heights - that's the difficulty with form based zoning code. Unlike typical zoning which creates 'the box'; form based further defines 'the box' to things like street wall heights and additional design elements.

In a sense; I'd rather people just go through the DA process. But that takes a long time. One of the fun things about Alberta's system of discretionary uses; is that we can use policy to help push the design when policy has specific requirements. That's not the case in a zoning system; unless Nova Scotia starts adopting a Conditional Use type of system; which I don't recommend. There are enough appeals now!

But wouldn't the fact the DA has already been approved not really matter? If this has been approved; it received approval before HbD was passed; so it is 'grandfathered'?

It would be grandfathered as is Twisted Sisters.

[someone123]

My impression was that it was included in the MPS and subsequent planning documents and so can move forward as-of-right (or until the HRM takes Crombie to court over it or something...).