HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 6:06 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
[Halifax] 2032 Robie & 2033 Parker | 76 m | 23 & 5 fl | Approved

Westwood Developments has applied for LUB amendments to allow for the redevelopment of the former funeral home on Robie Street near Quinpool Road. The proposal is for a 59m/18fl residential building (including 4fl podium) consisting of 120 residential units, 81 hotel units, and 106 parking spaces (93 below grade, 13 at-grade).

Initiation Report - Case 19281
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 7:50 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
Westwood Developments has applied for LUB amendments to allow for the redevelopment of the former funeral home on Robie Street near Quinpool Road. The proposal is for a 59m/18fl residential building (including 4fl podium) consisting of 120 residential units, 81 hotel units, and 106 parking spaces (93 below grade, 13 at-grade).

Initiation Report - Case 19281
Exactly what this site needs! Excited!

Now... let the opposition begin, hahaha!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 8:02 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
Westwood Developments has applied for LUB amendments to allow for the redevelopment of the former funeral home on Robie Street near Quinpool Road. The proposal is for a 59m/18fl residential building (including 4fl podium) consisting of 120 residential units, 81 hotel units, and 106 parking spaces (93 below grade, 13 at-grade).

Initiation Report - Case 19281
Right on!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 8:02 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Exactly what this site needs! Excited!

Now... let the opposition begin, hahaha!
Yes, now we're talking!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 8:23 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Yes, now we're talking!
Its the summer though... maybe this one will slide through. Let's hope so... this lot is perfect to help with urban density around the commons and close to downtown. Plus Quinpool will get a boost from it.

The only people who complain about things in Halifax are the people who have too much free time on their hands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 8:34 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
Its the summer though... maybe this one will slide through. Let's hope so... this lot is perfect to help with urban density around the commons and close to downtown. Plus Quinpool will get a boost from it.

The only people who complain about things in Halifax are the people who have too much free time on their hands.
Yes, I actually think there's going to be some strong *local* support.

I'm betting these guys will be right on board:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...ife-says-group
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 1:56 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
The report seems to be contradictory:

"While a second large scale residential building (Welsford Apartments) is located to the north of this site on the west side of Robie Street, this particular development has been identified as being out of scale with the existing neighbourhood and not of a desirable height and form for that section of Robie Street."

Then the very next paragraph...

"Furthermore, given that the Quinpool Road site is already designated as commercial within the SMPS, a taller development could be expected. A general urban design principle is that the wider the street, the taller that a building can be without appearing imposing. Given the substantial width of Robie Street, in addition to the presence of open space on its eastern side, it would be appropriate to consider this site as an opportunity for increased heights relative to the shorter buildings further west on Quinpool Road."

So can we build a tall building there or can't we? Precedent has already been set, considering the Atlantica and Welsford neatly bracket this site. Not to mention the buildings on Cunard. I'm sure the NIMBY's will be out, but what can they really say this time?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 3:25 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
the report seems to be contradictory:



I'm sure the nimby's will be out, but what can they really say this time?
'it's too tall'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 4:10 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
'it's too tall'
It's only a few metres taller than the Welsford. Oh, and I forgot the Quingate Place building for precedent setting buildings. Heightophobes are going to lose this one, I think (hope). I don't like the idea that you can't build taller than the existing in the area. How else will you ever grow? For heavens sake, even Philly finally relaxed its requirement that you can't build taller than the top of the William Penn statue at City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 6:38 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
I expect we have certain councillors already rallying the troops to lead the charge against the height of these buildings.
I would say the likelihood of these buildings being built at the height proposed is less than 5 percent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 11:14 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 432
First of all, 18 stories is WAY TOO TALL! There will be too much traffic generated, children will be deprived of precious vitamin D, and overall it won't suit the area.

The following is a more appropriate proposal for this site:

- 4 stories tall (max)
- Vinyl Siding exterior
- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing

We need to protect the future of our fair city and not allow developers to build monstrous eyesores that are detrimental to our lives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 12:18 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmcclassic View Post
First of all, 18 stories is WAY TOO TALL! There will be too much traffic generated, children will be deprived of precious vitamin D, and overall it won't suit the area.

The following is a more appropriate proposal for this site:

- 4 stories tall (max)
- Vinyl Siding exterior
- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing

We need to protect the future of our fair city and not allow developers to build monstrous eyesores that are detrimental to our lives.
Guys, guys, guys. You're missing the most important point in opposition to this monstrosity. You see, adjacency is not planning. So, just because there's a 20 storey building next door, does not dictate that we can build another tall building. And 4 storeys? I'm sorry, but that is too tall. That is out of character with the single storey glass bus stops on the road immediate to this intersection.

More important than current adjacent developments is historical zoning. Here, a proposal consistent with the historical zoning in the area-- and by historical, I mean Jurassic period but post Continental Drift-- would be a 1 storey mud hut.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 12:21 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Anything above 2 floors and made of anything other than wood is not of human scale and hence will be opposed by the councillor for the area, Jennifer "Moonbeam" Watts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 3:42 AM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
I hear they are building hobbit huts on the urban farm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 9:39 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Well this thread went hilariously off the rails pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 12:16 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmcclassic View Post
First of all, 18 stories is WAY TOO TALL! There will be too much traffic generated, children will be deprived of precious vitamin D, and overall it won't suit the area.

The following is a more appropriate proposal for this site:

- 4 stories tall (max)
- Vinyl Siding exterior
- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing

We need to protect the future of our fair city and not allow developers to build monstrous eyesores that are detrimental to our lives.
"- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing"

Please clarify your issue with this, I'm interested in hearing it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 1:01 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
"- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing"

Please clarify your issue with this, I'm interested in hearing it.
I got the satire you evidently missed.

Any development proposal that goes before Council has this thrown at it. It is like the word "sustainable" - there is apparently a secret codicil in the book of HRM Council Procedures that requires it to be used at least 10 times in any public debate on a new development.

The reality is that "affordable housing" is a meaningless term since no definition has ever been agreed to nor is there any framework for where and when it is open for consideration. If I propose a development on Emscote Drive, should I be required to make a component of it affordable? Does that mean a unit sells for $1.5 mil as opposed to the market value of $3 mil?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 1:30 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
"- At least 50% of available units are affordable housing"

Please clarify your issue with this, I'm interested in hearing it.
As Keith P. pointed out, I was just taking a jab at some of the usual NIMBY responses we hear when anything is proposed for development here.

On a more serious note, I hope this can at least make it to the Public Hearing stage without being scaled down or squished by council (like that development on Prince Albert Rd.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 5:03 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I got the satire you evidently missed.

Any development proposal that goes before Council has this thrown at it. It is like the word "sustainable" - there is apparently a secret codicil in the book of HRM Council Procedures that requires it to be used at least 10 times in any public debate on a new development.

The reality is that "affordable housing" is a meaningless term since no definition has ever been agreed to nor is there any framework for where and when it is open for consideration. If I propose a development on Emscote Drive, should I be required to make a component of it affordable? Does that mean a unit sells for $1.5 mil as opposed to the market value of $3 mil?
I got the attempt at satire, I just didn't find it satirical. I heard a piece on CBC this morning about the proposed development on Gottingen, where 50% of units will be at market rate, and 50% will be geared toward lower income; so someone in one unit with higher income would pay the market price, and someone in the unit "next door" who might work at Staples with a lower income would pay a rent geared toward that income, making it affordable to them. No one in the building would know which 50% their neighbors belong to. It reminded me of co-op housing where everyone has an opportunity to access quality housing. I can't imagine a argument against this. There are a number of people with good incomes who would pay their share, knowing that it creates opportunities for those with less income (before I bought a house, I would have done this); for those who don't support such arrangements, I won't be surprised that they would live elsewhere.
PS; Keith if you lived on Emscote, I don't you should be forced to do anthing you didn't want to do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 5:18 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
I got the attempt at satire, I just didn't find it satirical. I heard a piece on CBC this morning about the proposed development on Gottingen, where 50% of units will be at market rate, and 50% will be geared toward lower income; so someone in one unit with higher income would pay the market price, and someone in the unit "next door" who might work at Staples with a lower income would pay a rent geared toward that income, making it affordable to them. No one in the building would know which 50% their neighbors belong to. It reminded me of co-op housing where everyone has an opportunity to access quality housing. I can't imagine a argument against this. There are a number of people with good incomes who would pay their share, knowing that it creates opportunities for those with less income (before I bought a house, I would have done this); for those who don't support such arrangements, I won't be surprised that they would live elsewhere.
PS; Keith if you lived on Emscote, I don't you should be forced to do anthing you didn't want to do.
This is the way most new subsidized housing is being built, and it works a lot better than the housing-project ghettos of years past. I'd like to see Uniacke Square redeveloped along this model, in a way akin to Toronto's Regent Park.

50% affordable housing is really high, of course, but that's because the Gottingen project is being built by the Housing Trust and the province as an affordable-housing development.

The best approach is for private-sector developments to include a small percentage (say 5-10 %) of subsidized or rent-geared-to-income housing, in order to disperse subsidized units through neighbourhoods and cities.
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 4:49 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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