[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[NDPer4life]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, HRM is seeking city-state powers from the province to enable them, among other things, to initiate social programs

. Amen brother!!

[bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

...and not start granting exemptions before the thing is already in place.

If the plan is not already in place, then no exemptions are needed.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I would have been happy to see a 29-storey building here, but in the interests of getting developers, councillors, and citizens on the same page, it makes sense to support the heights as outlined in the Centre Plan...

To be honest: I find this statement very disappointing, yet perhaps reflective of the average Haligonian. Here we are, two citizens on the same page as developers on this proposal. It's not conspiracy then, but reality, and if we all just passively stand by, then we enable our city to be controlled and shaped by a small but vocal group of extremists.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I can't say what height is correct, but is there anything less arbitrary about a taller building?

More density per use of limited land. Reducing the height means we need to put people horizontally.

Do you FEEL a difference when you look at a building that is 7-9 stories taller? I mean, does that justification mean we should just sprawl everywhere and destroy the environment?

Case in point: The building on Bayers that was proposed at 16 and was cut to 9. There was supposed to be a park... now the squat building covers the whole lot.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

No offense meant, but the notion that everybody has to subscribe to the same philosophy regarding building height in order to participate here is bull****. Wouldn't that be the same as saying that anybody who doesn't live in Halifax has no place to post here (which would also be bull****, by the way)? Seems silly to me.

This and any other internet forum that I've ever read always have differing opinions that actually improve the conversation - it's OK that everybody doesn't agree, it makes life interesting...

While I don't agree with the height limitations in the Centre Plan, I don't think it should be too difficult to understand the logic involved in following it. Halifax has made most of the details public of their proposed plan - they've set a direction, so why would it be a good idea for them not to follow it? Wouldn't that be like publicly saying "this is what the rules say, but don't bother following them because we don't believe in it either". How would you expect any other developer to not cry foul once the plan is put into action?

The real issue, IMHO, is that they need to go back and reconsider the Centre Plan to allow more height in some areas, and be specific about it.

Not offended at all. Its just sad to see irrationality when the opportunity exists to create housing on the peninsula instead of in far flung areas.

There is literally a "tall building" on the site and it would be more

But hey, people can make up arbitrary reasons for anything. My reasoning is that the trade off between perceiving a building's height as too tall i

Also... the treatment of the groundfloor will be very important as will be design. This isn't even on the radar.

If this corner lot is being cut... then what of the two towers proposed next to it?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Not offended at all. Its just sad to see irrationality when the opportunity exists to create housing on the peninsula instead of in far flung areas.

There is literally a "tall building" on the site and it would be more

But hey, people can make up arbitrary reasons for anything. My reasoning is that the trade off between perceiving a building's height as too tall i

Also... the treatment of the groundfloor will be very important as will be design. This isn't even on the radar.

If this corner lot is being cut... then what of the two towers proposed next to it?

To be clear, I'm not in favour of the height limitations imposed by the Centre Plan (draft), I would love to see a 30+ storey building on this corner. All I'm saying is that, if the city has decided to impose these height limitations then it's logical that they start to set direction now or they will never be taken seriously.

IMHO, all SSP members who don't agree with those limitations should write a logical well-thought-out letter to the mayor and council as to why greater height limitations would be advantageous to the city. Not saying that it will change things, but it's worth a try...

[stevencourchene]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

More density per use of limited land. Reducing the height means we need to put people horizontally.

Do you FEEL a difference when you look at a building that is 7-9 stories taller? I mean, does that justification mean we should just sprawl everywhere and destroy the environment?

Case in point: The building on Bayers that was proposed at 16 and was cut to 9. There was supposed to be a park... now the squat building covers the whole lot.

If we bulid up and not up we are savings land space for other uses and we can create the same if not more density.
Now about the qe2 site in bayers lake don't get me started in that makes my blood boil just thinking of it!

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Explain?

If you have followed council for a number of years you would realise that developers were able to propose almost anything and there were a majority of councillors who would vote in favour.
It changed on election night because Mosher was defeated, and Dalrymple, McCluskey and Rankin retired.
The council can now be viewed as a 9-8 split in favour of more control on development and less support of developers. The council has moved to the left and those few who deeply disliked Mason and Watts are now part of the 8 member minority and no longer able to 'stick it to them', as one former candidate described the situation to me prior to the election.
The medical building proposed for Bayers Lake makes great sense when viewed from a rational review of the people it will serve. Once the VG is gone there is an opportunity for significant residential development.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

... Once the VG is gone there is an opportunity for significant residential development.

Unless the Friends of the Common have anything to say about it. I'm certain the VG is on Common Land and the "Friends" would have an absolute fit if people started living on what is now a decrepit hospital and expansive parking lot.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

may come into effect in the future, therefore it is now effectively already in place, and not only that but it overrides development applications which have been initiated some time ago.

kinda - but not really. center-plan bestows more rights on the site then exist now. They are asking to Exceed the current rules, but the city is under no obligation to allow that. if the city holds them to Centerplan rules, they are not loosing anything, since they never had it, and are still getting more then then they have now. its not a override.

[teddifax]

If and when the old VG Hospital is torn down, and if the site is able to be re-developed I wish there weren't a limitation on the height as with that huge a site, a building somewhere in the middle could be really tall. I agree with a previous comment that height should not be limited to 20 stories. This site could be a signature building, maybe even with a rooftop restaurant (revolving). Then the outer buildings could conform to the height restrictions and also leave green spaces. Also, such a site, could also have a transit hub.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Unless the Friends of the Common have anything to say about it. I'm certain the VG is on Common Land and the "Friends" would have an absolute fit if people started living on what is now a decrepit hospital and expansive parking lot.

The VG is on Common land but that is not a planning consideration. A developer may be able to build quite high.
Looking at the site several buildings of 80 metres could be possible.
I looked at shadows and here is the link, you can adjust according to height, date and time, obviously shadows are longer in winter.
http://www.suncalc.org/#/44.638,-63.....21/15:56/80/2

[Jonovision]

For me it becomes the legality of using the Centre Plan. If council only let Armco develop a 20 storey building on this site using the justification that the Centre Plan is in the works and will become the official plan in the "future" and Armco then decided to appeal that decision. It would have no legal ground in a court of appeals as that plan is still in draft form and council has not approved it. Not to mention the plan that is in draft form is still only the higher level document. My understanding is the actual bylaws have yet to be drafted.

[RoshanMcG]

From Armco's Facebook:

Thank you to everyone who participated in our recent survey on the development of Willow Tree Tower in Halifax. We have published those survey results, and added Shadow Studies and some history on this project, at www.100letters.ca

[q12]

https://www.100letters.ca/

This is a fantastic idea! Time for the rest of Halifax residents to voice their opinion.

This city is really starting to hit it's stride, but the constant whining about the height of buildings is always there threatening to derail the progress being made.

What is with the height phobia? (probably a rhetorical question )

[DT Hfx]

For once a petition I can sign.

I also wrote an email to Council in support.

They are looking to get as much support as they can before an upcoming public hearing at City Hall on May 23rd at 6 p.m.

https://www.100letters.ca/take-action

[fenwick16]

Whoever did the skyline image did a great job, IMO.

(source: https://www.100letters.ca/)

[teddifax]

I put my name on this today!

[q12]

Well the city has f'd this up...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax...ht-change.html

[Keith P.]

Ringleader was (as usual) the anti-development Mason. Bizarre that the usually anti-development Cleary was in favor, but his behavior at Council is so erratic and frankly bizarre that I've given up trying to slot him into any camp. He seems almost unstable.

[Duff]

There is a public hearing on Tuesday Jan 18, and council will vote on 20-storeys. Armco is pushing for a subsequent hearing to allow for 25-storeys. Here are some new renderings for the 25-storey proposal.