[Halifax] 2032 Robie & 2033 Parker | 76 m | 23 & 5 fl | Approved

[ILoveHalifax]

Way back, prior to Scotia Square, there was a proposal for a 50 story tower but it got rejected in favor for what we have.
I'm with Fenwick on this; I would like to see these towers go taller.
This is almost center peninsula so the views from a 50 story tower(s) would be spectacular, great place for a revolving roof top restaurant.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Way back, prior to Scotia Square, there was a proposal for a 50 story tower but it got rejected in favor for what we have.
I'm with Fenwick on this; I would like to see these towers go taller.
This is almost center peninsula so the views from a 50 story tower(s) would be spectacular, great place for a revolving roof top restaurant.

I don't think I would agree with 50 storeys at Robie and Quinpool, but adding another 4 - 6 stories and making it even slimmer would be better, in my opinion. However, something like the Seattle Space Needle in downtown Halifax would suit me just fine. Certainly a couple 35 storey tall office towers of 150 meters plus in downtown Halifax would be nice.

Here is a prototype for Scotia Square that was proposed in the 1960's (I like this better than what was built):

(source: http://www.cbc.ca/ns/features/cogswe.../?section=been). According to the story, this model is kept at the NS Archives.

[Dmajackson]

Staff is recommending that this proposal NOT proceed to the public hearing stage. They feel the current proposal doesn't meet the requirements regarding massing, suitability, and shadows. The applicant has hired a new architect so a new site plan may come forward in the near future.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0906ca1418.pdf

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Staff is recommending that this proposal NOT proceed to the public hearing stage. They feel the current proposal doesn't meet the requirements regarding massing, suitability, and shadows. The applicant has hired a new architect so a new site plan may come forward in the near future.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0906ca1418.pdf

I love how the staff report states that a building of 29 storeys would best be suited for the downtown.

Of course, you are not allowed to build 29 storeys in the downtown.

Why?

Because It's TOO TALL!!!

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Staff is recommending that this proposal NOT proceed to the public hearing stage. They feel the current proposal doesn't meet the requirements regarding massing, suitability, and shadows. The applicant has hired a new architect so a new site plan may come forward in the near future.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0906ca1418.pdf

I am confused... Is this the Fares one on the corner, or the other development just north of that?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I love how the staff report states that a building of 29 storeys would best be suited for the downtown.

Of course, you are not allowed to build 29 storeys in the downtown.

I got a kick out of that. In public consultations a lot of people similarly say "it would be fine somewhere else but not here". Of course, if you moved it to another site, a different group of people would oppose it in the same way.

I guess maybe the Centre Plan will fix this problem, but likely by banning any construction up to this height range. I wish the city would instead allow height but demand higher quality and more public amenities in return. That would be a win-win scenario. Instead they are arbitrarily forcing developers to build highrises that are less economical and that extra efficiency is simply lost.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I am confused... Is this the Fares one on the corner, or the other development just north of that?

Staff is recommending 20 storeys for the Armco property on the corner of Robie and Quinpool, and 6 storeys (currently, pending a new architect's design) on the Westwood site on Robie.

Staff Report Cole's Notes:

- Staff was considering both applications at the same time.
- Had concerns with massing, height, shadows, spacing between towers, and impact on adjacent lower density development.
- Armco's design iterations sufficiently addressed all of the concerns except height (went UP from 22 storeys to 29 storeys)
- Westwood has not yet done anything to address the concerns, and may have trouble doing so because their lot depth is much less
- Until Westwood proposes something different, 6 storeys seems appropriate (an increase from the 35 ft currently allowed)
- In the meantime, don't want to hold Armco up. Propose allowing them to continue, but limit at 20 storeys. This will allow a gradual stepping up of height along Quinpool from Oxford to Robie, and will still allow for the tallest building in the area

[IanWatson]

Council just voted to separate the two applications. I guess the Westwood proposal on Robie will come back at a later date once they put together a new design? Council rejected Staff's recommendation to limit the Armco tower to 20 storeys and instead directed them to draft amendments to accommodate the building as designed (29 storeys).

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Council just voted to separate the two applications. I guess the Westwood proposal on Robie will come back at a later date once they put together a new design? Council rejected Staff's recommendation to limit the Armco tower to 20 storeys and instead directed them to draft amendments to accommodate the building as designed (29 storeys).

That is pretty bold of council to allow for the larger version. Although considering they want that one it strikes me as a bit odd that they would reject the Westwood building.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I got a kick out of that. In public consultations a lot of people similarly say "it would be fine somewhere else but not here". Of course, if you moved it to another site, a different group of people would oppose it in the same way.

I guess maybe the Centre Plan will fix this problem, but likely by banning any construction up to this height range. I wish the city would instead allow height but demand higher quality and more public amenities in return. That would be a win-win scenario. Instead they are arbitrarily forcing developers to build highrises that are less economical and that extra efficiency is simply lost.

I'm convinced that the anti-height forces have planned this all along. Eventually the places where height would have been allowed will be restricted and nothing taller that our existing stock will ever be built.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

That is pretty bold of council to allow for the larger version. Although considering they want that one it strikes me as a bit odd that they would reject the Westwood building.

They didn't reject the Westwood one. They just voted to consider them separately. Presumably they'll look at the Westwood one again once their new architect has taken a crack at it.

[portapetey]

Interesting. I'm not sure I feel about this. On the one hand, YES! The taller tower might get built!

On the other hand, does council ever accept staff's recommendations against much of anything? It seems like council does just go along with whatever the developers propose, regardless of the rules. Despite some people's impression that Halifax is somehow anti-development and anti-height, council's record as of late has seemed quite the opposite.

But still, I really hope the tower goes ahead.

And after I just said I have little hope for the 30 story tower on Spring Garden too. :-)

[hoser111]

Revised proposal for this one...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax...ie-street.html

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by hoser111

Revised proposal for this one...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax...ie-street.html

Interesting tactic... and risky. We hear so often that developers need height to make viable projects, but here's a developer basically saying that a 6-storey building is interchangeable with a 22-storey tower.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Interesting tactic... and risky. We hear so often that developers need height to make viable projects, but here's a developer basically saying that a 6-storey building is interchangeable with a 22-storey tower.

There is also the difference that the 22 storey is a rental apartment tower while the 6 storey is a commercial building.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Interesting tactic... and risky. We hear so often that developers need height to make viable projects, but here's a developer basically saying that a 6-storey building is interchangeable with a 22-storey tower.

They introduce the FAR concept at the beginning of the presentation. It's a different (better) scenario than in the past when residents and developers simply argued about adding on or removing floors from the same proposal with no other trade-offs.

These are just preliminary designs but they look decent. Seems to me that this developer is going down a good path. There is so much potential and need around the North Common for more development (counting Pepperell and the the old high school sites); hopefully a few of these will be built.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Interesting tactic... and risky. We hear so often that developers need height to make viable projects, but here's a developer basically saying that a 6-storey building is interchangeable with a 22-storey tower.

That's FAR at work. The 6 story takes up 70% of the lot. The 22 tower only takes 23%. Three times the footprint or three times the height.

[alps]

Ugh, I don't really want to see FAR become the normal point of debate in Halifax.

A point tower with minimal site coverage doesn't belong on such a prime urban site. It reminds me of the "Summer Gardens" condo building, which fronts Spring Garden Road with a fenced-off green lawn. Totally inappropriate for the site, and very suburban in nature. Reminds me of Vancouver's West End.

Focusing on FAR seems even worse than our typical fixation on height. Between these two options, I prefer the boring low-slung building, only because a tower with such a huge setback is so anti-urban. Large public open spaces like the Commons ought to be well-defined by a continuous streetwall...not lost within a matrix of suburban "towers in the park".

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by alps

... prefer the boring low-slung building, only because a tower with such a huge setback is so anti-urban. Large public open spaces like the Commons ought to be well-defined by a continuous streetwall...not lost within a matrix of suburban "towers in the park".

I don't necessarily think the low-slung option is "boring," but I do think it's a far better urban edge to the Common. This conflicts somewhat with my personal opinion that the large space of the Common is one of the best places in the city to concentrate height... so, I think I'd end up preferring some sort of Frankenstein mashup where there's maybe a two or three storey streetwall with a tower. Maintainting the FAR would mean the tower gets a bit shorter.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

That's FAR at work. The 6 story takes up 70% of the lot. The 22 tower only takes 23%. Three times the footprint or three times the height.

Oh I know. It's just that so often that we hear (including on this forum) that "only tall buildings are viable" or "the only way to stop sprawl is to build tall buildings". And yet here is a developer admitting that this is not the case.