[Halifax] Point North (3065 Robie) | 59 m | 18 fl | Completed

[kph06]

The planning website for this has been updated with more info and another rendering.

Case 17456 Details

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

My following of developments in Halifax is as blantantly obvious as my activites on this forum...
I may need reminding of environmental groups in Halifax fighting tall proposals, especially if these incidence occurred thirty years ago -- as factual as they may be.

Any actual scientist of environmental studies will be for much more height, unless the site in question is connected to vital habitat...which is often a suburban issue.

No, I'm talking about all recent proposals since I joined SSP a few years back. Most of these people are "activists" and not scientists. Activists aren't the reason the harbour is being cleaned up or other projects concerning the "environment" in HRM... in fact, most of them are pushing an agenda that isn't grounded in any real science. So if that's what you are implying my opinion is... well its somewhat factual. Anyway, you could throw a dart at a board in terms of these armchair experts, whether heritage, family groups, or whatever! We've got every breed of anti-development person in Halifax!

We are getting off topic. I sincerely hope this opposition is seen relative to the obvious benefits of this kind of density in the area. I mean, the height arguments may have some validity near heritage (I still don't fully get this idea considering the heights of some heritage structures), but in this area of the city? Is there anywhere height can be permitted?

It will be interesting to hear what Watts says.

[TheNovaScotian]

After looking at the new renderings I can imagine crossing the bridge and coming down Robie St, seeing that and the 2 towers proposed over on Young next to the office tower already there and being mildly impressed

[someone123]

I like their treatment of the bottom floors. Some newer buildings in Halifax look unattractive and unwelcoming because they have low-slung lower floors without much glass that in some cases are not even at the same grade as the sidewalk. Grade separation is a common way to make areas feel "private", which is appropriate for some hidden residential area but is inappropriate along a major street. Thankfully standards and awareness of urban design in new buildings in Halifax seem to be going up.

The tower design itself is OK. The scale of the podium is quite good.

We will see how long it takes for all these new North End buildings to go up, but to me they are another case of a change I'd wanted for a long time that now seems to actually be happening in Halifax. I'm looking forward to going back for a trip and seeing all the positive changes. I think there's more happening now than I have ever seen previously.

[RyeJay]

Once the ball gets rollin' for developments in the North End, places like this may finally get developed...

http://g.co/maps/u5ddj

[someone123]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Once the ball gets rollin' for developments in the North End, places like this may finally get developed...

http://g.co/maps/u5ddj

There was some kind of disappointing proposal for a gas station or something on that site a while back.

Part of the issue with this whole area is that it's poorly planned and laid out. It was originally fair grounds and a horse racing track at the edge of town (back in the 1800s-1930 period). The Forum is one of the few survivors from that era and was supposedly some sort of barn/agricultural exhibition building originally. As usual, when those old uses disappeared the area just sort of drifted into its current state as a vague, semi-suburban light industrial and strip mall area. It should be developed in a more purposeful way and the lowest common denominator suburban development should be banned. Buildings like the Shoppers, which looks identical to something you might see along Lacewood or somewhere similar, should not have been allowed in their present form.

I wish the "it doesn't fit in!!!" police would worry more about stuff like transplanted suburban strip mall development and less about building heights.

[Keith P.]

Here is the bizarro letter in question:

Bridget Quigley writes:

Thank you for your even keel and regular coverage of things close to home.

The article caught my attention because of my involvement in the community and my hand in the development of SJAM Community Playspace 2012, directly adjacent to the recently approved St. Joseph Square project.

The last three months has seen a lot of community mobilizing. My recent experiences tell me that may be a great big hassle for this project from Banc and Mr. Halef.

Mr. Blumenthal should know better. In fact this may be the one that is made an example of.

A big loud example to push the idea of a big tall North End right out of developers minds. The hot debate over a 9-storey St. Joseph Square on Gottingen has just barely squeaked through as a one-off for the North End neighborhood and the two towers a little ways off are not causing cries of "Welcome!"

With 19 stories Mr. Halef is not putting up a building filled with homes, he is building himself a vertical street. Profitable but definitely not the direction voiced by residents in the area. There is density and then there is mega-density and this will not be acceptable to the community.

It's going to be an ugly fight. When I didn't object to nine stories I heard again and again, "You don't understand, this is the beginning, it's all about getting taller."

"People," I said,"are reasonable, and developers are people."

They are people, but they must not live in the neighborhood if they thought this or anything like this tower would "fit in". Time has come to be reasonable. The neighbors will no longer be grateful that a building is 14 instead of 19, or 10 instead of 14.

The expensive and in-depth HRM By Design process came to a very straightforward conclusion on the input from the North End that residents did NOT feel anything over five storeys was a beneficial addition to the neighborhood and should be adhered to.

My prediction: the backlash from the area over recent proposals and approved projects is going to leave Banc Properties 14 stories short of its objective. Period.

I would very much like to put forward the idea, circulating in these parts, that a corridor of beautiful new developments, creating mounds of density, and new vibrant neighborhoods, could be possible in the Lady Hammond/Kempt Road "car-buy-mile".

A new boulevard, yes, lined with trees and wide sidewalks, not unlike Vancouver's 4th Ave in Kitsilano, this "New Richmond Carsville" could be a stunning development area. Plenty of underground parking, commercial units supplying local demand and office space, with six- to eight- stories towers set back on top, park space and wide public sidewalks. An urban, terraced, and treed, sweep of a boulevard.

Think Chrysler Building in N.Y. The deal could include a tribute - the dealers and brands keeping their names on the buildings for a posterity of publicity. Full of a thematic urban charm. The regulated zone, preplanned and backed by a slew of notable property developers could be so unique as to national and international attention. As long as its beautiful.

Certainly with the highway access at one end and the downtown literally next door it's a location that would be immensely popular, as long as it is not given a people-warehouse and beige box/grey tower treatment. New neighborhood, on the peninsula, need I say more?

Were there to be a few determined developers willing to cooperatively lobby City Hall for an incentive package to automotive dealers on the peninsula to move and redevelop their investment in the land, this "Richmond Renaissance" if designed as a neighborhood in advance, would change the face of the North End and reap heaps of profit all around. Mr. Halef? ECL? Are you listening?

Carry on.

[musicman]

Wholly crap.. What a mess. She is quite out there isn't she. That had to be one of the most convoluted hard to read letters that i have ever read..

[Empire]

Here is a good example of what kind of building nit-wit Bridget Quigley is fostering by her naivety.

Horrible low density trash in prime density area:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3065+R...w7cZkyDGA&z=17

[worldlyhaligonian]

Uhh, and up on Lady Hammond is a real neighborhood, nicer than any part of this stretch of Robie! Also, The St. Joseph's proposal is in a completely different area, not the bombed out section of a major street.

This is hilarious, I bet she isn't even from the North End originally...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Also, what is wrong with a business making a profit? Is that somehow wrong?

[halifaxboyns]

Wow - after reading that letter, all I can say is sweet mother of god.
What is she smoking? Honestly!
I think the renderings look quite good; I'm all for letting height loose in this area. Frankly, I can see two separate areas of height in this area. The Young/Robie lands (and this site) and then the lands around the Hydrostone. While I'd be willing to compromise with the stuff around the Hydrostone at around 9 stories (and maybe evening going slightly taller if the brewery was ever redeveloped); letting height rip on this site and around the forum - that's a no brainer. What's the problem?

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Also, what is wrong with a business making a profit? Is that somehow wrong?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with profit, certainly because it is the city that shall be profiting with more tax revenue.

Surely, Bridget Quigley just forgot about this...

I'm hoping some of the more rational members of council step up to the plate and embrace height in the North End. Bridget Quigley's opinions give groups like 'Screw The View' something to bark about. And they would be correct: the height-phobia spans the entire peninsula.

What would Ms. Bridget prefer: 30+ floor high-rises in the downtown where there is definitely an established "neighbourhood".... or in this barren part of the North End?

There is no damned neighbourhood to protect yet because these proposed towers would be creating it!!

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Empire

It's another Trillium without the bonnet......

The Trillium shouldn't HAVE a bonnet.

I love the asymmetry of this building, and hope it will be a "magnet" for more development in that area.

[Keith P.]

Interestingly, there was another letter in AllNS today from someone in support of the project. That individual, as it turns out, works at the same business as Ms. Quigley.

That must make for an interesting daily work environment.

[someone123]

One of my favourite newer terms is "low-information voter". It seems very relevant in cases like these. Many people don't know the first thing about this stuff and base their opinions on very little information -- maybe a rumour from a neighbour, a flyer, or a sound byte.

I suspect that's where the mega density Chrysler building rants come from. They are based on a very small core of correct, relevant information.

This also highlights why popularity contest-style politics are so dangerous. The majority do not have the level of knowledge required to make informed political decisions.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What scares me is the intent of planning laws are being misused by groups constantly. So this person's plan is to set a precedent by stopping this building and therefore somehow stopping all height in this area?

The policies are meant to be guidelines, not set in stone. Furthermore, I don't think stare decisis is a rule in HRM, so if one tall building is shot down it doesn't mean that others will be automatically.

These people are ruining the intent of planning policy and law... something developers have been criticized for, but I don't think its really been a problem aside from the Waterton fiasco.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Interestingly, there was another letter in AllNS today from someone in support of the project. That individual, as it turns out, works at the same business as Ms. Quigley.

That must make for an interesting daily work environment.

So, she works for a profit making business? Well, she's just as evil/greedy as the developers who want to "build a vertical street".

Ryejay - you are right, the taxes derived from any of these developments could go toward these communities.



THINK OF THE CHILDREN HERE PEOPLE!!!! EVIL TALL BUILDINGS NOT FITTING WITH LOW DENSITY AREA!!!

[RyeJay]

From this address, how many metres tall would a building have to be in order to be seen from inside the Citadel's Courtroom?

That number would perhaps be a reason for councillors to complain.

19 floors (62 m) is actually quite tame.

[halifaxboyns]

Did anyone go to the public information meeting last night?