HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Cunard in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Halifax Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2020, 7:30 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,003
Presentations and meeting minutes are now up.
It seems some members of the committee tried to refuse the development but were not successful.

Presentations:
https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/boa...pecial-meeting

Minutes:
https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...pminsDRAFT.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2020, 8:04 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
... much nicer than the parking lot that's there now...
That's an awfully low bar for any site, let alone a prominent waterfront site.

I'm glad SOMETHING is being done, but I can't say I'm convinced this will be a great building and my current opinion is that the building falls far below the potential of the site. No doubt project economics will be to blame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 12:08 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
It's been approved! The only variance that was rejected was the size of the balconies. Between Cunard Block, Queen's Marque and the new art gallery I think we've got a lot to be excited about!
That's disappointing. I want to see the empty waterfront lots developed as much as anyone else here, but we need to make sure that such prominent sites are done right.

The Lower Water Street frontage is particularly awful. What a missed opportunity to extend the commercial strip southward. Can't see the commercial sense either, in having a blank wall & planters rather than street-level shops and dining spaces. I know the frontage is sloping but that's not a unique condition, and we have contemporary buildings that respond to more heavily sloping sites (e.g. Flynn Flats just around the corner).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 1:22 AM
Querce Querce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 129
The motion approved last night:

Quote:
That the Design Review Committee:
1. Approve the qualitative elements of the substantive site plan approval application for Case
22708 as shown in Attachment A with consideration given to the following:
a) adding public access to the penthouse level,
b) adding articulation to the banding,
c) providing vertical articulation to break up the horizontal massing within floors 3 and 4 of the
development, and
d) subject to an approved license agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc, the applicant shall
consider minor modifications to the streetwall of the building abutting the Morris Street
Waterfront View Corridor, such as streetwall articulation, materials including glazing, and public
art features that serve to further activate the terminus area of the Morris Street Waterfront View
Corridor.
2.Approve 11 of the 12 variances requested by the applicant but refuse the variance that is
requested to section 10.13 of the Land Use By-law which allows balconies to be permitted
encroachments into a setback or stepback provided that the aggregate length of the balconies
does not exceed 50% of the building face and approve the following variances:
a) Variance Category 3: Maximum Height Variance is consistent with section 3.6.8d of the Design
Manual,
b) Variance Category 4: Precinct 1 Built Form Variance is consistent with section 3.6.7b of the
Design Manual,
c) Variance Category 5: Tower Width and Separation is consistent with section 3.6.7b of the
Design Manual, and
d) Approve the 4 variances as per the staff recommendation.
3.Accept the findings of the qualitative Wind Impact Assessment, as contained in Attachment C.
4.Recommend that the Development Officer accept sustainable building practices as the post-
bonus height public benefit for the development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 3:13 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Some renderings from the more recent report:



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 12:18 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Maybe they should have gone with the original proposal that looked like a cruise ship run aground.

The DRC really seemed dysfunctional in reading the minutes. Members coming and going, lots of "would like to see" and "should look at" suggestions that are totally meaningless, in short they accomplished little of meaningful effect. Not sure what their purpose is or what the members qualifications are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 12:59 PM
connect2source's Avatar
connect2source connect2source is offline
life in the present
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,698
Wow!..shockingly terrible!!

Been following the evolution of this design from here in Vancouver for years. It's been degraded so many times and now looks like something we would have built in the suburbs here a decade ago. An absolute mess of spandrel and cheap balcony railings, what an eyesore! ..and certainly a 180 from the quality of the Queen's Marque, and for such and prominent location along one of Canada's most beautiful urban waterfronts. Someone was asleep at the wheel here
__________________
source | energy

Last edited by connect2source; Aug 2, 2020 at 1:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 1:59 PM
mleblanc mleblanc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Maybe they should have gone with the original proposal that looked like a cruise ship run aground.

The DRC really seemed dysfunctional in reading the minutes. Members coming and going, lots of "would like to see" and "should look at" suggestions that are totally meaningless, in short they accomplished little of meaningful effect. Not sure what their purpose is or what the members qualifications are.
I actually much preferred the earlier "wavey" style concepts to what we are getting. It was in the very least a different design to what we are used to seeing here. But alas, now we get this multicoloured panel monstrosity perched on a parkade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2020, 4:51 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
There is a lot of spandrel and if anything that tends to come out looking more prominent in the final buildings compared to the renderings.

Most new buildings in Halifax do a mediocre job of addressing changes in grade. This has a big impact on some streets downtown. Salter's Gate and Bishop's Landing both have some odd recessed commercial spaces. The Cunard proposal is similar along Lower Water Street. Thankfully the Alexander had a somewhat easier site to deal with and looks better. It was also only built halfway up the block, so there is no block-long blank wall at the grade change. Thankfully the blocks are mostly very short along their hilly axis so having small commercial spaces on the corners is enough to avoid the dead zone effect. But this site has a grade change on a long side of the lot.

Lower Water Street is challenging in general. It is in transition between being basically a wasteland and being a functional downtown commercial street. Buildings like this will give it only a moderate density of commercial spaces. Hollis is similar. There isn't necessarily anything bad with that but it's not turning into a new Barrington or Spring Garden Road. Maybe that never was possible since the boardwalk is so close by. There is only so much demand for storefront space. But this development will nevertheless move the area in a good direction by adding to foot traffic and commercial density.

Last edited by someone123; Aug 1, 2020 at 5:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2020, 1:38 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,233
I feel as though commercial spaces oriented toward the water or sides of the site only will be less viable... I don't have any facts to back that up. Just a hunch. I guess I feel like they're less visible and people don't tend to stroll the boardwalk when getting from A to B, and that you/we want successful commercial to be ON THE WAY BETWEEN A and B, so it's easy to see, easy to think "oh, I should stop in there," and easy to get to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2020, 5:31 PM
mleblanc mleblanc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 527
Those panels on the tower portion are giving me the same vibes as The Alexander. And not in a good way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2020, 2:02 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,220
This was designed by IBI Group, the same architects who did the Maple (which was also built by Southwest). Considering the Maple looked dated when it was built back in 2017, I hold out zero hopes for this one being a positive addition to the waterfront.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2020, 2:29 PM
W.Sobchak's Avatar
W.Sobchak W.Sobchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 116
Maybe that's the angle, make it looked like it is from the 1990's so it fits in with the rest of the unimaginative skyline...
__________________
"Am I the only one around here who gives shit about the rules?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2020, 2:33 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
This was designed by IBI Group, the same architects who did the Maple (which was also built by Southwest). Considering the Maple looked dated when it was built back in 2017, I hold out zero hopes for this one being a positive addition to the waterfront.
I think the original concept was done by IBI. This latest version is done by Ziedler out of Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2020, 6:34 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
This was designed by IBI Group, the same architects who did the Maple (which was also built by Southwest). Considering the Maple looked dated when it was built back in 2017, I hold out zero hopes for this one being a positive addition to the waterfront.
The Maple is a mixed bag. The curved spandrel side along Sackville Street did not turn out well. The glassy lower parts are nicer although the exposed concrete of the balconies looks a little cheap.

My impression is that Curve and Pavilion do not suffer from the same problems.

One thing I wonder is how much the improvement in design comes from groups like the DRC demanding changes and how much comes from local architects and developers gaining experience or learning from norms set by other projects. I'd guess that the "improvement by doing" factor is larger than "improvement through regulation".

Of course Halifax builders used to be able to produce amazing masonry buildings up until the 1950's or so, but there was a break in the postwar period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 6:02 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,003
I don't have paid access to the examiner so cannot read the entire article but they are reporting that this development was appealed 23 times by neighbours and neighbouring businesses!!!

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/city-...fBxs-r5ESZAKf8
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2020, 6:25 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
I don't have paid access to the examiner so cannot read the entire article but they are reporting that this development was appealed 23 times by neighbours and neighbouring businesses!!!

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/city-...fBxs-r5ESZAKf8
I don’t subscribe to Bousquet’s blog either but know that you need to take everything published there with a very large slug of skepticism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 12:36 PM
atbw atbw is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I don’t subscribe to Bousquet’s blog either but know that you need to take everything published there with a very large slug of skepticism.
It has a municipal spokesperson on record confirming they received 23 appeals. Any property owner in the downtown area can appeal the decision within 30 days. The details of the appeals will be included in a staff report delivered to council towards the end of the month.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 2:01 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Well, there are a large number of usual suspects who probably have the number to apply for an appeal on speed dial. One of the candidates running to replace Mason is decrying this approval by saying that since it is publicly owned it should be a park or affordable housing or some other public use. She has zero change of getting elected. Hopefully others with better chances are taking on Mason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2020, 4:29 PM
atbw atbw is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, there are a large number of usual suspects who probably have the number to apply for an appeal on speed dial. One of the candidates running to replace Mason is decrying this approval by saying that since it is publicly owned it should be a park or affordable housing or some other public use. She has zero change of getting elected. Hopefully others with better chances are taking on Mason.
Looking at the candidate listing, all three including Mason are broadly progressive, pro-transit, pro-affordable housing, pro-active transport. Maybe that's what the citizens of downtown and South End want? Otherwise, wouldn't someone else be running? Or would they have been taken out by the so-called bicycle mafia?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 11:57 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.