HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 2:55 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
I think the original design was better, but this will likely fit into the conservative sensibilities of Haligonians better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 3:09 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
I think this one is better, but still pretty meh, overall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 3:14 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
I like the redesign. It complements the existing building a bit better and they even added two storeys to it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 1:56 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
We can always count on the CBC to jump on the anti-development train:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...reys-1.3409342

Quote:

Halifax development at Oxford and North Streets faces more concern

Building was originally approved by the city at 7 storeys with 75 units

Residents near the corner of North and Oxford Streets in Halifax aren't impressed with a revised plan that sees the height of a proposed building project grow by two storeys compared to the developer's original plan.

Mythos Developments Ltd., the company behind the project, is facing some blowback in its decision to increase the height of the building from seven storeys with 75 unites to nine storeys with 106 units.

Nearby neighbours were already concerned the project wouldn't suit the area.

"He [the architect] addressed some of the aesthetic concerns, but not the height or the density or the mass," said resident Joan Fraser, who lives across the street.
Blend with neighbourhood

Two buildings — a duplex and Ardmore Hall, the former St. Theresa Convent — would be razed to make way for the project.

Fraser says she's not opposed to the city's goal of having more people live in the city centre, but wants new projects to easily blend in with the look of the neighbourhood.

She says the company owns a four-storey building on Inglis Street that would be more suited for the North and Oxford Street area than the nine-storey alternative being proposed.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking for," she said.

The development should be delayed, Fraser said, until new planning rules for the city centre are adopted.

The city will host a public engagement meeting about the project Monday night.

And here we go again...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 1:49 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
We can always count on the CBC to jump on the anti-development train:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...reys-1.3409342




And here we go again...
While I think 9 storeys would be fine for this area, you have to wonder why the developer would add 2 storeys to the original proposal, already knowing that height was a contentious issue.

Maybe he figures if he asks for 9 he'll be able to barter for his original 7?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 1:58 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
While I think 9 storeys would be fine for this area, you have to wonder why the developer would add 2 storeys to the original proposal, already knowing that height was a contentious issue.

Maybe he figures if he asks for 9 he'll be able to barter for his original 7?

That's how it has to be done here, to faux-mollify the "It's TOO TALL!" brigade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2016, 12:07 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
I'm shocked, shocked, to find current residents complaining about height and density of a proposed new development!

History.. repeats...itself...history...repeats...itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 2:44 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Apparently the developer convened a community meeting about ths proposal last night. Guess what they heard?

"It's TOO TALL!"

"Human scale!"

Watts has brainwashed her constituents quite effectively it seems.

Last edited by Keith P.; Aug 31, 2016 at 4:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:19 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
9 Stories done well (done like a wedding cake - tiered) can be nice. Most of the new stuff we are approving along Calgary's corridors is in the 6-12 storey range which is mid-rise; human scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:18 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
9 Stories done well (done like a wedding cake - tiered) can be nice. Most of the new stuff we are approving along Calgary's corridors is in the 6-12 storey range which is mid-rise; human scale.
But ultimately, height of any midrise should also reflect width of the street, not just arbitrary # of storeys. Maybe mid-rise is 6-12 in calgary, but it doesn't necessarily work in halifax. Toronto has a good approach relating it to street width then to 45 degree angled plane for sunlight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:23 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by planarchy View Post
But ultimately, height of any midrise should also reflect width of the street, not just arbitrary # of storeys. Maybe mid-rise is 6-12 in calgary, but it doesn't necessarily work in halifax. Toronto has a good approach relating it to street width then to 45 degree angled plane for sunlight.
Since most of our streets are ridiculously narrow in this town, you would be lucky to get even a 2-storey structure approved under those rules.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:59 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Since most of our streets are ridiculously narrow in this town, you would be lucky to get even a 2-storey structure approved under those rules.
Not quite, but it would max out at 4-6 stories along some corridors like gottingen, but at Young and Robie you'd likely be up to 12.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 5:23 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Usually the "width" used for calculations is streetwall-to-streetwall, not the width of the roadway itself, so the dimensions are usually a bit greater than you'd expect at first glance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 6:00 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Usually the "width" used for calculations is streetwall-to-streetwall, not the width of the roadway itself, so the dimensions are usually a bit greater than you'd expect at first glance.
Yea. exactly. By street, I mean atleast full ROW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2016, 11:20 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Well, it's pretty much all moot now. Our new Council shot it down in flames. Why? Because "It's TOO TALL!!!" Shameful. Don't ever preach "density" when you get up on your hind legs and bloviate about something in the suburbs at a Council meeting ever again, dudes.

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...rd-development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 2:18 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, it's pretty much all moot now. Our new Council shot it down in flames. Why? Because "It's TOO TALL!!!" Shameful. Don't ever preach "density" when you get up on your hind legs and bloviate about something in the suburbs at a Council meeting ever again, dudes.

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...rd-development
Not to change the subject... but it says at the end of the article that the amendments were approved for the Young/Windsor towers? Does this mean that the 21/18/5 story proposal is good to go?

Thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=215801&page=3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 3:20 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Well, it's pretty much all moot now. Our new Council shot it down in flames. Why? Because "It's TOO TALL!!!" Shameful. Don't ever preach "density" when you get up on your hind legs and bloviate about something in the suburbs at a Council meeting ever again, dudes.

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...rd-development
It was community council, I went to see how the changes would affect development decisions and it pretty much went the way I expected.
The North & Oxford goes to the full council after a 4-2 vote which did not recommend approval to Regional Council.
When Regional council meets to make the final decision it may well be denied or it will be a very close vote either way. The usual guarantee of a positive vote from Mosher was/will be replaced by a negative vote from Cleary.
Many more bike lanes are on the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 2:02 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Many more bike lanes are on the way.

I'll have to look into bulk purchases of carpet tacks and a way to spread them innocuously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 2:27 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I'll have to look into bulk purchases of carpet tacks and a way to spread them innocuously.
A large truck will be necessary and a brush on the front to give the impression you are sweeping the streets at 1 a.m.
Welcome to a 8/8 council with the mayor trying to figure out which way to vote.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2016, 4:58 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
A large truck will be necessary and a brush on the front to give the impression you are sweeping the streets at 1 a.m.

That would be a dead giveaway as everyone knows HRM seldom sweeps the streets.
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 9:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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