HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 9:42 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
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.
We have too many boring slabs, yes. Definitely.

But I'm not sure gothic always "wins hands down". It's about having an interesting and unique mix. Too many slim and pointy towers would tire me.

Of course, as things stands now, I wouldn't mind having at least *one*.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2014, 10:11 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
The preceding discussion about heritage blocky vs. slim height overlooks one important factor. We are not permitted to have height in most parts of the downtown thanks to the absurd and obsolete viewplanes. Even if we were somehow able to eliminate the height phobia that so many residents of this city seem to share, this legislation prohibits tall buildings as an offset to protecting heritage as has been discussed. It is a dead stop. Add to that the ridiculously short height requirements mandated by the already obsolete HRMxD and you are beating a dead horse.

I would love for a council member to make a BOLD move and table a motion to eliminate the viewplanes entirely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 12:09 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
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.

Does anyone know when the Ramparts maximum height rule became part of the city bylaws? I think it would be great if 22nd Commerce Square could be built 30 storeys high in exchange for keeping more of the heritage buildings on that block intact (although they might still have to be gutted and rebuilt inside to make them functional for another 100 years).

If only we had a more rational group representing city heritage instead of the Heritage Trust then maybe such deals could be arranged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 12:30 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Does anyone know when the Ramparts maximum height rule became part of the city bylaws? I think it would be great if 22nd Commerce Square could be built 30 storeys high in exchange for keeping more of the heritage buildings on that block intact (although they might still have to be gutted and rebuilt inside to make them functional for another 100 years).

If only we had a more rational group representing city heritage instead of the Heritage Trust then maybe such deals could be arranged.
I believe City council adopted an "objective" on view planes in 1974 stating that all new buildings should be located to preserve view planes.

A 1974 zoning by-law then identified each of the view planes (geometrically).

In 1986, the same principle was incorporated in the Municipal Development Plan for Halifax.

That same year, a zoning by-law was passed that entrenched the broad view plane (and height restrictions) we know today-- First, no building could be higher than 75Ft in the view planes or penetrate any view plane. Second, the overall height limits based on the Citadel ramparts and Parade square viewing positions.

See: http://www.canadianarchitect.com/new...nt/1000196393/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 12:59 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
While I agree whole-heartedly, I can't but help snicker...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
...the relentless hot Halifax sun.
Not my first description of the local climate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 2:16 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I believe City council adopted an "objective" on view planes in 1974 stating that all new buildings should be located to preserve view planes.

A 1974 zoning by-law then identified each of the view planes (geometrically).

In 1986, the same principle was incorporated in the Municipal Development Plan for Halifax.

That same year, a zoning by-law was passed that entrenched the broad view plane (and height restrictions) we know today-- First, no building could be higher than 75Ft in the view planes or penetrate any view plane. Second, the overall height limits based on the Citadel ramparts and Parade square viewing positions.

See: http://www.canadianarchitect.com/new...nt/1000196393/
Thank you for the information. I wonder if the Heritage Trust was the driving force for the view-plane bylaws?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 2:18 AM
lawsond lawsond is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 554
Quote:
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.
I know this will sound shallow to some, but I just love soaring tall buildings. I have a childlike fascination with them. It is phallic. It is imperial. It is grandiose and imposing. I just plain old love the crap out of skyscrapers. So my interest is not about knitting together an urban fabric. It is to see a big, bad ass skyscraper grow into the sky. And for it to fulfil its purpose as standing for something...an idea, an ideal...something bigger than a slab that looks like a filing cabinet for humans...That is what I see in Halifax and other cities. My view is not in the majority anymore and I fear it sounds a bit jeuvenile and even politically incorrect. But it is why I love buildings.
__________________
lawsond
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 3:45 AM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
I think Wyse road would be one of the most ideal places in the city for a few dozen 40+ story buildings, there are enough empty space in the city that you could probably fit a million people into the area without knocking down anything of significance
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 12:08 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Thank you for the information. I wonder if the Heritage Trust was the driving force for the view-plane bylaws?
I think it was actually a broader coalition (the same people that opposed the Harbour Drive plans-- led by architect Alan Duffus) that pushed them in 1974, but by 1986, it was largely Heritage Trust; FWIW, many of the key proponents in the earlier broader coalition (like Alan Ruffman) would later become the key actors in the Heritage Trust.

IMHO, view planes were an overreaction to the idiotic development plans pitched back in the late 1960s, which was to bulldoze large chunks of the heritage districts downtown and make the mistake that Toronto did-- building a waterfront expressway (known as "Harbour Drive") through downtown along the waterfront, to bring sprawlbanites from the sprawlburbs to downtown quickly. It's probably no coincidence that the plan was inspired by an "urban renewal" report done by a University of Toronto professor named Gordon Stephenson. Toronto was able to stop the even more destructive Spadina expressway; Halifax thankfully stopped Harbour Drive. The Cogswell Interchange is the scarred remains of that urban planning battle.

Those dumb waterfront expressway plans were thankfully stopped, and view planes were a product of policy moves made in years thereafter, as I said, an overreaction in ways. Part of the reason, was that Scotia Square was closely tied to the dumb Harbour Drive plans and Scotia Square was among the first "high rise" developments back then believed to encroach on views from the Citadel. So, height restrictions and view plane restrictions were seen as essential to making development plans like the waterfront expressway impossible. Unfortunately, they also played a role in slowly killing downtown over the subsequent decades, by making even smart and helpful development difficult and costly.

Last edited by counterfactual; Jun 15, 2014 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 1:22 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I think it was actually a broader coalition (the same people that opposed the Harbour Drive plans-- led by architect Alan Duffus) that pushed them in 1974, but by 1986, it was largely Heritage Trust; FWIW, many of the key proponents in the earlier broader coalition (like Alan Ruffman) would later become the key actors in the Heritage Trust.

IMHO, view planes were an overreaction to the idiotic development plans pitched back in the late 1960s, which was to bulldoze large chunks of the heritage districts downtown and make the mistake that Toronto did-- building a waterfront expressway (known as "Harbour Drive") through downtown along the waterfront, to bring sprawlbanites from the sprawlburbs to downtown quickly. It's probably no coincidence that the plan was inspired by an "urban renewal" report done by a University of Toronto professor named Gordon Stephenson. Toronto was able to stop the even more destructive Spadina expressway; Halifax thankfully stopped Harbour Drive. The Cogswell Interchange is the scarred remains of that urban planning battle.

Those dumb waterfront expressway plans were thankfully stopped, and view planes were a product of policy moves made in years thereafter, as I said, an overreaction in ways. Part of the reason, was that Scotia Square was closely tied to the dumb Harbour Drive plans and Scotia Square was among the first "high rise" developments back then believed to encroach on views from the Citadel. So, height restrictions and view plane restrictions were seen as essential to making development plans like the waterfront expressway impossible. Unfortunately, they also played a role in slowly killing downtown over the subsequent decades, by making even smart and helpful development difficult and costly.
I completely agree. I hope that in the near future the Heritage Trust will add people who are more rational in their objectives and are willing to work with the city and developers to promote a livable, interesting city. Maybe the Fusion group is the organization that can better meet that objective?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 3:37 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I completely agree. I hope that in the near future the Heritage Trust will add people who are more rational in their objectives and are willing to work with the city and developers to promote a livable, interesting city. Maybe the Fusion group is the organization that can better meet that objective?
I can't criticize someone for their hopes, I just wouldn't hold out too much hope for it. The trouble I have with HT, is that every last aspect of a building or streetscape must be preserved regardless of what may happen to a building during its existence. That building on Barrington by the Khyber, that had a fire in it in the early 90's or something, but the exterior façade survived. Nothing ever got built until recently because the exterior remained intact, and that's how Barrington looked when Cunard and Howe walked the Earth, so it had to stay that way. Heh we essentially had a prop from a movie set overlooking a busy street on a prime piece of land for about 20 years.

Also their concern about preservation has everything to do with the age of a building and NOTHING to do with its current condition, or even any aesthetic value. That's why Barrington St is full of crappy dingy buildings, and the facades look even crappier and dingier next to the glass additions sticking out of some of them. Meanwhile, an absolutely beautiful building in St. Josephs church gets knocked down because it was built in the late 50's, too "new" to have been on the HT's radar. I just think their priorities are out of whack, and they're almost impossible to take seriously on ANYTHING, even the very thing they are mandated to do.

Granted, with a little bit of planning wisdom back in the 60's (even just a smidge) a new downtown could have been built where Uniacke Square is now, complete with mega-malls and mega structures. Imagine Fenwick Tower (or something even taller) at the corner of Uniacke and Gottingen. The existing downtown of the day could have been preserved, views and all. It would be Old Halifax to the south around the Citadel, and New Halifax just to the North.


Oh my, I didn't intend to rant like that. My apologies for continuing the off-topic trend we have taken.

Back to topic. I think this shadow stuff is silly. Any shadow study could be done just by watching the Welsford for a sunny evening. Any new building would have to have the same length of shadow, would it not? The trees flanking Robie do cast a good shadow on their own, a building would have to be pretty tall to overtake them, and even then it would just cast onto left field of the diamond by the corner at Cogswell. No harm, no foul, let's build something there. I tend to agree that tall and sleek is probably the way to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 3:40 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
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.
Actually that's not what I'm implying and I would whole-heartedly agree with your proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 3:46 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawsond View Post
I know this will sound shallow to some, but I just love soaring tall buildings. I have a childlike fascination with them. It is phallic. It is imperial. It is grandiose and imposing. I just plain old love the crap out of skyscrapers. So my interest is not about knitting together an urban fabric. It is to see a big, bad ass skyscraper grow into the sky. And for it to fulfil its purpose as standing for something...an idea, an ideal...something bigger than a slab that looks like a filing cabinet for humans...That is what I see in Halifax and other cities. My view is not in the majority anymore and I fear it sounds a bit jeuvenile and even politically incorrect. But it is why I love buildings.


I totally get your views on this. My interest has developed more to the urban planning side of things but can understand your awe for skycrapers. It's why I first came to this site.

Wasn't trying to question anybody's reason for liking skyscrapers, I guess I was more questioning height for the sake of height. Of course it's a complex subject and I will no further derail this thread with my musings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 10:51 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
When are the meetings for this?

If they are in the summer, typically developments pass easier because people are away on vacation, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2014, 11:08 PM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
When are the meetings for this?

If they are in the summer, typically developments pass easier because people are away on vacation, etc.
Wont this be next year around winter? Judging from the Commerce Square, The Maple, Market Lofts, the approval is near 7 month more or less. I don't think this proposal or the other quinpool one are apart of the HRM by Design guide rules so the approval proses could be more down the line. City council is probably going to be pretty busy talking Stadium, preforming art centre, forum, cogswell, rail, ect... for this stuff to slide through this summer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:16 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
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.
I have driven by this area at 7:15pm and I can say that the 7:30pm summer shadow projection is accurate. So if these are built, that entire ball field by the corner will have a shadow across it. Do BANANA NIMBY's play softball? This too is a Pavlov's dog scenario. Development proposed that is 5+ stories *bell rings* OMG THE SHADOWS!!!

I wonder what the morning shadows are like in the other direction. You know, if Mrs. Jones' tulip garden on Parker St. doesn't get the right amount of morning sun those things will die .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:05 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
This too is a Pavlov's dog scenario. Development proposed that is 5+ stories *bell rings* OMG THE SHADOWS!!!
But it's not a pavlovian response to a proposal that's over 5 stories, it's a reasonable response to a proposal (really two) that can actually be demonstrated (as you've acknowledged) to cast significant shadows that actually would have an impact. In most cases the shadows wouldn't really have an impact. In this case they would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:41 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
But it's not a pavlovian response to a proposal that's over 5 stories, it's a reasonable response to a proposal (really two) that can actually be demonstrated (as you've acknowledged) to cast significant shadows that actually would have an impact. In most cases the shadows wouldn't really have an impact. In this case they would.
'Splain it to me, Lucy. What's the impact?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:41 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
But it's not a pavlovian response to a proposal that's over 5 stories, it's a reasonable response to a proposal (really two) that can actually be demonstrated (as you've acknowledged) to cast significant shadows that actually would have an impact. In most cases the shadows wouldn't really have an impact. In this case they would.
Yes, but the impact (atleast the evening one) is solely on softball and cricket activities in the summertime. Those individuals playing on that diamond would be impacted, yes. I don't see how this is different from a small select group of people impacted by another development somewhere else.

Perhaps Pavlov is the wrong comparison. Maybe it's more like The Boy Who Cried Wolf (The NIMBY who cried Shadow). They've gone to the shadow well sooo many times that I can't take them seriously anymore.

I would concede that the morning shadow may be a problem. That little triangle pocket park between Windsor, Welsford and Parker would be completely engulfed in an AM shadow (if it isn't already), but is the park used heavily in the morning? Does the PM shadow from St. Vincent's (and all the trees in the area) cover the park in the evening? If so, maybe that makes a shadow argument moot, if it's covered all day except for high noon anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:49 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
It's still more of an impact than most shadows would have. It's one of the only instances that I've heard this argument used where it actually feels like it has at least some validity. I think this specific location is the only cricket (pitch? field?) in HRM... of course the argument can be made that one could be established elsewhere, but basically it comes down to: are the buildings affecting the utility of the Commons, if so, to what extent? What extent is acceptable? Because the more the Commons become less attractive to use, the more they are a huge dead zone in the middle of the city (that nonetheless won't be developed) rather than the huge asset that they currently are.
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 5:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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