HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 7:05 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
That's totally a valid concern.

And I think we'd all like to see a taller, thinner building rather than a shorter, squatter building anyway.
Well and the fact is that they are asking to initiate the case - which means what is before them will change. So the planner involved will make that issue known and can come back when the process is over and recommend against the starting proposal if it's demonstrated that the impact is significant.

Conversely, if the applicant changes the application to a taller slimmer tower and the impact changes to something less and more acceptable; the planner could recommend council approve the new proposal. It's all in the art of negotiation and discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 8:30 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Why is the shadow argument even an issue? The Common isn't the Public Gardens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 9:36 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
With the location of the Welsford, there is no valid reason against building this at 18 stories.

This is the exact type of density the commons needs... opposition begs the question: if not here, then where? This site is more appropriate than the 18 story going up on Robie.

I'd like to see taller and skinnier... but that is unlikely DUE to the height phobic folks that always have the same story.

This type of thing is getting ridiculous in Halifax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 9:47 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
The argument (which I agree has some validity) is that the mass of the three towers combined, and particularly the Robie St. building, will cast significant shadows on the most heavily used part of the commons during the times of day that it is most heavily used (for cricket and baseball, mostly). The staff report argues that having a taller, slimmer tower on the Robie Street site may be a better option than what is proposed, since it would allow better sunlight penetration. It's one of the first times I've seen the planning establishment in HRM acknowledge that problems with shadows have as much or more to do with a building's width than its height.

The Quinpool site might be more of a challenge. HRM staff basically wants to double the distance between the two towers (which would bring the tower separation in line with HRMbD and what is common practice in most of Canada). I'm not sure how the proposal could be re-jigged to accommodate this short of merging it all into a single tower, or getting very creative with terracing and cantilevers.
I agree that wide towers should be discouraged. In my opinion, tall and slender is just more visually appealing.

Shadows would be cast for the latter few hours of the day. But in reality, I don't think that would affect a baseball game negatively (the bright sun shining in a fielder's eyes might be worse). In any case, it is a factor that will surely be brought up.

Last edited by fenwick16; Jun 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 9:50 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
That's totally a valid concern.

And I think we'd all like to see a taller, thinner building rather than a shorter, squatter building anyway.
Imagine... to solve a planning issue we end up with *taller* buildings. That would be something, alright.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 10:20 PM
hokus83 hokus83 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
I'm sorry you shadow issues folks have no sweet clue what you are talking about, and you sound like ninnies. The trees on the commons cast more of a shadow than any 18 story building on the other side of Robie would, a 40 story building would hardly cast a shadow on the commons from that distance, hell you could build a 100 story building and it would be a none issues because the sun doesn't rise from North to South, any shaddow you are going to get on the commons from a tall building is going to be very late in the day when its setting. As far as tall and slim vs short and wide, the infill in this area is better than than having some tall thin building and its better to have a diversify of both
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 1:19 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I agree that wide towers should be discouraged. In my opinion, tall and slender is just more visually appealing.
So is that what skyscraper enthusiasm comes down to... an aesthetic?

Potentially the same footprint, same number of units, but we must fight for a tall slender building because it's prettier? I'm all for development and improved new buildings, but there has to be more to it than appearance, otherwise it all seems like an empty argument.

Hypothetically, if short and squat is more efficient and fits the needs of the future residents and the neighborhood better, then fighting for a tall building *just because* seems ludicrous to me.

I know the depth of this forum is much greater than this, but it disappoints me a little to read that it must be taller because it looks nicer. IMHO, if there are no benefits of increasing density or instituting better land use, then increased height seems like a waste to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 3:36 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
The aesthetic is one dimension, but as has been pointed out, tall/slender buildings affect things like shadows and sky views as well as being visible objects in and of themselves. There certainly are those, though, who just like buildings that are taller than they are wide and will tend to support their construction regardless of other factors. There are also people with the opposite standpoint. There are also other factors that aren't considered often, like elevator and fire code issues, setback requirements, waste disposal, etc.

I don't think the shadow concerns are a totally invalid or made up point. The staff report talks about them in pretty deep detail. The site is west of the Commons, not north or south. I would recommend reading the section of the report concerning shadows if you are interested in knowing what the concerns are. Again I am not making them up, and they seem legitimately worth consideration (what is the point of building up density around the commons if it makes the commons less enjoyable to use?)

The one assumption that I always find a bit odd (but completely pervasive) is that shadows are necessarily bad. As has been mentioned, maybe baseball would actually be easier WITHOUT the sun in your eyes. And I often find myself walking on the shady side of the street on a sunny day just to get out of the intense heat/light. I guess the problem with shadows is once you add them, they're hard to get rid of.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 4:08 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
This site has 200 feet of frontage on Robie. The plan is for a podium with 3 floors of hotel space taking up most of the lot. Above the podium is currently proposed a 15-floor tower with 8 residential units (not sure if apartments or condos) on each floor. So to give the same number of units we would be looking at a 30-storey tower with 4 units per floor, making it about as tall as Fenwick, but significantly thinner. I like tall buildings as much as anyone, but I'm rather indifferent on this. I have lived above the 20th floor in the past and it has its pros and cons. It seems to me that a 30-storey tower with 4 units per floor would be rather inefficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 6:58 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
To respond to KeithP's question on shadow - from what I've seen in my career - there is a tendency for most people (when using parks) to enjoy the areas that have sun more than those that in the shade. That's quite subjective I realize because you can look at the Common for example and see people in both the sunny areas and the shade, but this is just the 'typical' response. If you look at blocks in many major cities which are in perpetual shade - they tend to have much less activity. Blocks that have the sunlight exposure - tend to have more.

I think the concern is that this proposal may cast a larger shadow on a bigger foot print of the common than may be impacted (if any) with the current building. Whether that is in fact that case - I haven't seen a shadow study so I take the concern as being a fair question but nothing proven at this point.

Taller/thinner buildings tend to create less impact on shadows than taller/wider buildings but it all really comes down to the design and use of materials/recessions and projections of the building. So you could have a taller/thinner building but if there is all sorts of added 'stuff' it might cause greater shadow impact.

For this project - I'd say there isn't anything proven at this point so I'm holding my judgement until I see a shadow study. But to say there will be no impact - that's not reasonable. There is likely going to be some impact - but if the impact is say just an hour period from 7-8am - I'd argue, how many people are going to be in the park enjoying the impacted area at that time?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2014, 12:03 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
The aesthetic is one dimension, but as has been pointed out, tall/slender buildings affect things like shadows and sky views as well as being visible objects in and of themselves. There certainly are those, though, who just like buildings that are taller than they are wide and will tend to support their construction regardless of other factors. There are also people with the opposite standpoint. There are also other factors that aren't considered often, like elevator and fire code issues, setback requirements, waste disposal, etc.

I don't think the shadow concerns are a totally invalid or made up point. The staff report talks about them in pretty deep detail. The site is west of the Commons, not north or south. I would recommend reading the section of the report concerning shadows if you are interested in knowing what the concerns are. Again I am not making them up, and they seem legitimately worth consideration (what is the point of building up density around the commons if it makes the commons less enjoyable to use?)

The one assumption that I always find a bit odd (but completely pervasive) is that shadows are necessarily bad. As has been mentioned, maybe baseball would actually be easier WITHOUT the sun in your eyes. And I often find myself walking on the shady side of the street on a sunny day just to get out of the intense heat/light. I guess the problem with shadows is once you add them, they're hard to get rid of.
I agree with your stated opinion. Just out of curiosity I drew a 3D model of 2074 Robie Street (the 19 storey Welsford apartment building) in Sketchup-2014 and checked the shadows generated by the Sketchup program at various times of the day for June 11, 2014. Here are the images that were generated.

http://imageshack.com/a/img834/9996/3qexz.jpg (4:30 PM ADT)
http://imageshack.com/a/img837/808/3ypu.jpg (5:30 PM ADT)
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/142/f4grq.jpg (6:30 PM ADT)
http://imageshack.com/a/img841/6145/ksmjn.jpg (7:30 PM ADT)
http://imageshack.com/a/img850/3797/luu0.jpg (8:30 PM ADT)

I included a row of 55 foot high trees where there currently are trees along the Commons (55 feet high was my guess).

Sketchup is able to generate shadows for various locations (based on the UTC zone and its geographic co-ordinates) for times throughout a day, and days throughout the year. I think it is very impressive for a free 3D CAD modeling program.

The good thing about the shadow concerns is that there is a 19 storey tower at 2074 Robie Street so it will be possible for someone to actually observe the shadow from that building on the Commons during the evening hours.

Personally, I don't think that shadows generated on the Commons by the 2032-2050 Robie Street and the Quinpool & Robie corner proposal should be of concern (since they are further south and should have less impact on the Commons) but I am sure others will disagree.

PS: I did this for fun and I can't guarantee its accuracy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2014, 12:50 AM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
So is that what skyscraper enthusiasm comes down to... an aesthetic?
Frankly yes. At least to me. This is a skyscraper forum. Skyscrapers are about architecture, beauty, height, lots of things. But if you are primarily concerned with building density, then best to start a "building density forum". I make absolutely no apologies for insisting on aesthetic beauty and point towers are more pleasing to the eye than slabs. It's like gothic vs. romanesque. To me, gothic wins hands down. But of course this is an opinion and subjective. Some people love fat, squat things.
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2014, 2:40 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Seems Central Park has survived quite fine with some massive density and massive (wide) and tall skyscrapers all along its border, like along Central Park West:





Here's a story on similar complaints about Central Park:

http://ktep.org/post/new-yorkers-pro...ew-skyscrapers

Quote:

Quote:
"The shadows cast by tall, slender buildings, which is what most of the buildings going up are, are very brief — maybe they're 10 minutes in any one place — and cause no negative effect on the flora or fauna of the park," said Gary Barnett, president of Extell Development. What's more, Barnett says, the buildings are creating many permanent jobs in retail, hospitality and construction. "And these are not minimum-wage jobs," Barnett says. "Many of the union construction jobs compensate between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Upon salaries like this our fellow New Yorkers can build a better life."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2014, 9:43 AM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawsond View Post
Frankly yes. At least to me. This is a skyscraper forum. Skyscrapers are about architecture, beauty, height, lots of things. But if you are primarily concerned with building density, then best to start a "building density forum". I make absolutely no apologies for insisting on aesthetic beauty and point towers are more pleasing to the eye than slabs. It's like gothic vs. romanesque. To me, gothic wins hands down. But of course this is an opinion and subjective. Some people love fat, squat things.
Well said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 1:13 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawsond View Post
Frankly yes. At least to me. This is a skyscraper forum. Skyscrapers are about architecture, beauty, height, lots of things. But if you are primarily concerned with building density, then best to start a "building density forum". I make absolutely no apologies for insisting on aesthetic beauty and point towers are more pleasing to the eye than slabs. It's like gothic vs. romanesque. To me, gothic wins hands down. But of course this is an opinion and subjective. Some people love fat, squat things.
Good points. Halifax is infested with squat bulky buildings. Centennial, Joe Howe, Prince George, Belmont House etc. These buildings consume 100% of their site and are overpowering because they are aesthetically bland.

A tall slender building allows for the possibility of ground level green space, historic street level restoration or a small plaza. If you look at the new TD addition from Hollis St. and compare it to the Joe Howe or Centennial buildings it is clear that low squat bulky buildings have a visual negative impact on the urban landscape. Halifax, IMO, needs to shake the squat barrack look and adopt more of a taller sleek appearance. This would especially apply to the Cogswell site.

I think the commons could use a shady area as a place of reprieve from the relentless hot Halifax sun. 95% of the common is wide open to the sun. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the folks arguing against shadows also promote staying out of the sun and its harmful rays.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 3:16 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawsond View Post
Frankly yes. At least to me. This is a skyscraper forum. Skyscrapers are about architecture, beauty, height, lots of things. But if you are primarily concerned with building density, then best to start a "building density forum". I make absolutely no apologies for insisting on aesthetic beauty and point towers are more pleasing to the eye than slabs. It's like gothic vs. romanesque. To me, gothic wins hands down. But of course this is an opinion and subjective. Some people love fat, squat things.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. It answers a lot of questions I have had.

Typically the discussions I find interesting here are about how to design a city that works. A city that maintains elements of the past but moves forward with striking new designs... ones that help make the city work, ones that provide a great place for citizens to live. Ones that take all aspects of urban life into account when considering building design and placement, which also includes transportation, neighbourhood configuration, etc.

The discussions I find least interesting are the ones that tend to flow towards the opinion of tearing down everything to put up a tall pretty skyscraper, "just because I like skyscrapers".

To each his own, I guess.

Again, I am impressed with the depth and diversity of this forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 6:13 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by empire View Post
good points. Halifax is infested with squat bulky buildings. Centennial, joe howe, prince george, belmont house etc. These buildings consume 100% of their site and are overpowering because they are aesthetically bland.

A tall slender building allows for the possibility of ground level green space, historic street level restoration or a small plaza. If you look at the new td addition from hollis st. And compare it to the joe howe or centennial buildings it is clear that low squat bulky buildings have a visual negative impact on the urban landscape. Halifax, imo, needs to shake the squat barrack look and adopt more of a taller sleek appearance. This would especially apply to the cogswell site.

I think the commons could use a shady area as a place of reprieve from the relentless hot halifax sun. 95% of the common is wide open to the sun. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the folks arguing against shadows also promote staying out of the sun and its harmful rays.
100%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 7:13 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Thanks for clearing that up for me. It answers a lot of questions I have had.

Typically the discussions I find interesting here are about how to design a city that works. A city that maintains elements of the past but moves forward with striking new designs... ones that help make the city work, ones that provide a great place for citizens to live. Ones that take all aspects of urban life into account when considering building design and placement, which also includes transportation, neighbourhood configuration, etc.

The discussions I find least interesting are the ones that tend to flow towards the opinion of tearing down everything to put up a tall pretty skyscraper, "just because I like skyscrapers".

To each his own, I guess.

Again, I am impressed with the depth and diversity of this forum.
I guess you're implying that a tall handsome building can't offer everything some other design can....whatever that may be? I would like to see taller in exchange for saving historic buildings in there entirety.

For example, I would like to see 22nd Commerce Sq. redesigned to include all heritage buildings on the block saved and renovated in exchange for height. In this case I would say 30 fl. This won't happen and heritage and current policies will butcher that block.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 7:47 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post

For example, I would like to see 22nd Commerce Sq. redesigned to include all heritage buildings on the block saved and renovated in exchange for height. In this case I would say 30 fl. This won't happen and heritage and current policies will butcher that block.
Exactly. The historic aspects would be superior, the contemporary aspects would be more striking, and it would ultimately be a more impressive urban landmark. I'm reasonably optimistic for the project, but I'm not thrilled about the treatment of the existing buildings. It's easy to see how it could be made better in this way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 9:34 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
I guess you're implying that a tall handsome building can't offer everything some other design can....whatever that may be? I would like to see taller in exchange for saving historic buildings in there entirety.

For example, I would like to see 22nd Commerce Sq. redesigned to include all heritage buildings on the block saved and renovated in exchange for height. In this case I would say 30 fl. This won't happen and heritage and current policies will butcher that block.
I like the current plans, but I would support this idea fully, even if it meant delaying things.

Unfortunately, the Heritage activists who are opposing this development also would *never* agree to more height, even if it meant better Heritage preservation. I'd bet all the money in my pockets against anyone here on that count.
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 10:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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