[Dartmouth] United Gulf Old YMCA Site | ? m | ? fl | Proposed

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Sadegh

I’m new on the forum – just having a look around at various developments around town and especially what’s happening in Dartmouth.  I’m glad things are moving along and like some of the developments that are being proposed – the rendering for this one look promising.  I read an article about these buildings the other day and thought I’d share it with the group …
 
http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Opinion...-development/1
 
 

Thanks and welcome.

A boardwalk on the lake near the towers would be so cool.

[Jonovision]

There is already a very nice trail along that section of the lake. Right where the towers will be is a bit lacking at the moment, but I'm sure that will change once these go up.

[Jonovision]

Condo towers proposed for Banook site

17-storey buildings exceed height restrictions for area
Business editor

Chris Lambie

reports on United Gulf’s latest proposal for its Lake Banook site

A developer is back with a proposal to build two tall condominium towers on the former Dartmouth YMCA site near Lake Banook.

United Gulf Developments Ltd. , which has owned the property for more than a decade, now plans to build two 17-storey condominium towers on the lot, which is just over 1.5 hectares.

In 2007, the company had proposed two 16-storey buildings for the site. Back in 2005, United Gulf in­troduced a plan to build two, 10-storey condo complex­es on the lot near the popular canoeing venue.

“We have changed the plans so many times to get no effect on the lake," Navid Saberi, the president of Unit­ed Gulf Developments, said Monday.

According to an overview of the project on Halifax Regional Municipality’s website, the Dartmouth mu­nicipal planning strategy capped building heights in the area at 10.5 metres in 2005, meaning the developer

would need to get an amendment to build the towers.

“We put a policy in (place); we should be keeping the policy," Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dart­mouth Centre) said Monday.

“We have the regional plan and if we’re going to change every time somebody comes in and wants something, let’s do away with it altogether."

McCluskey wouldn’t say if she opposes the development. Munic­ipal staffers are now preparing a report on the two 17-storey tow­e rs.

“I would expect that the plan­ning (department) should come in with a negative recommenda­tion," McCluskey said, refer­encing the height limitations laid out for the area.

But Saberi said he’s “cautiously optimistic" that he’ll win approv­al for the towers.

United Gulf commissioned a wind study of the project because members of local canoe clubs worried it would change paddling conditions in the area.

“Both building design and tree conditions will affect the wind conditions on the canoe course. It is our opinion that the wind ef­fects that may be caused by the proposed condominium devel­opment on the canoe course are localized and their overall impact is likely to be insignificant," con­cluded the study, prepared by

Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. of Guelph, Ont.

Making sure the project won’t have an impact on canoeing con­ditions was important to United Gulf, said Patrick LeRoy, the company’s vice-president of oper­ations.

“This is an area steeped in 100 years of regatta history and racing on the lake," LeRoy said.

The project “wouldn’t fly if it would negatively impact the race course and we were extremely sensitive to that."

Saberi couldn’t put an exact price tag on the project.

“It’s somewhere between . . .

$55 million and $65 million."

The towers will go on top of a one-storey podium and the entire project won’t be any taller than the 52.5-metre project that went to a public meeting in 2007, Sab­eri said.

“It’s a very unique site and there are a lot of people who want to live in that area," he said.

None of condominiums have sold yet, Saberi said.

“But we have lots of names on the list (of people who have) been talking to us for the last few years. Once we get our approval, then we go to the market."

The buildings, with a central hall construction plan, will have four units on each floor, Saberi said.

The condos will all have a view of at least one lake, he said.

“And when they get up over the five-storey (mark), a lot of them are going to have the view of two lakes."

The company could start the towers beside Lake Banook with­in six months of winning munici­pal approval, Saberi said. It would take about three years from that point to complete the project, he said.

United Gulf is starting con­struction in July on its second phase of the Waterton condomini­um complex on Walter Havill Drive. The next 150 condomini­um units should take about 16 months to build.

“The construction value is about $35 million," Saberi said.

“We did the first tower, which was $45 (million), but this one is a little bit less because we have already built the podium."

(clambie@herald.ca)

[DigitalNinja]

At least the waterton will be started this summer.

[Dmajackson]

Never mind read the thread name wrong

[Dmajackson]

Well chances are we will be saying "bye, bye" to this proposal after Tuesday. Assuming the councillors agree with staff I have some mixed emotions. Part of me is sad to see a high density proposal disappear for the urban core but if staff is correct and the buildings would affect the lake I can accept this loss. After all there are 28-storey and 15-storey proposals for Horizon Court and Prince Albert Road respectively. I hope the lot will be put to good use in near future. Some urban townhouses could finish off the cul-de-sac area and the existing trail could be maintained and made into a pocket-park.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0920ca1114.pdf

[fenwick16]

I have to agree with Dmajackson, I also think that preserving Lake Banook as an international calibre canoe course is an important consideration.

[halifaxboyns]

I was neither here nor there about this proposal.
I was waiting to see the results of the wind study and I have to be the third to agree: if it's going to affect the course, don't bother.

There are just some sites where high density isn't appropriate because preservation of something is important. This course is world class. They can put a smaller building, make it stunning, but short and sell the units for 800K and up for a stunning view. Problem solved.

[Keith P.]

Shot down by Gloria without a public hearing. More news as well in another post...

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Shot down by Gloria without a public hearing. More news as well in another post...

....!! WHAT!?

[fenwick16]

I am not too surprised that this project was rejected since the staff recommendation was against it and the height limit at that location is 35 feet.

[JET]

As I said in another thread, most sensible people accept that this proposal would affect the lake and therefore was rightly defeated.

[Jstaleness]

I did like this one but too but I like the idea of hosting more events on the lake better. proposal.

[Haliwood]

Sorry, but I don't get this rejection at all.

Why would blocking wind be a bad thing anyway?

And, didn't they do a wind study to prove it wouldn't affect anything anyway?

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Haliwood

Sorry, but I don't get this rejection at all.

Why would blocking wind be a bad thing anyway?

And, didn't they do a wind study to prove it wouldn't affect anything anyway?

I don't think it was about blocking the wind. I think it was more about how the buildings would change and accelerate the wind toward the lake.

[Haliwood]

How does two structures getting in the way of the wind accelerate it? I guess I'll leave that to physicists..

Anyway, just sounds like sour grapes to me.. These guys are just hating on United Gulf everywhere in the city.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Haliwood

How does two structures getting in the way of the wind accelerate it? I guess I'll leave that to physicists..

Anyway, just sounds like sour grapes to me.. These guys are just hating on United Gulf everywhere in the city.

Well the staff report for the project talks about a wind modeling study they did with the proposed towers. It has to do with changing the wind conditions on the lake for the rowing course.

I'm neither here nor there for this application; it could've gone ahead or not and I really wouldn't have cared. I didn't really see it as that great...just some sort of 'suburban' high density that was trying to be close to a transit centre.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Haliwood

How does two structures getting in the way of the wind accelerate it? I guess I'll leave that to physicists..

Can't speak to how this specific design would affect wind... but in general an object's shape can alter the speed of winds through something called the Bernoulli effect. This is the exact same concept of how an airplane wing works, where the air travels at a higher velocity over one side than the other thereby creating a pressure difference.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Haliwood

Sorry, but I don't get this rejection at all.

Why would blocking wind be a bad thing anyway?

And, didn't they do a wind study to prove it wouldn't affect anything anyway?

http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Opinion...-development/1

In March there was info that the wind study didn't affect the lake;
perhaps that wasn't so.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

In March there was info that the wind study didn't affect the lake;
perhaps that wasn't so.

Watch council sometime and see how councillors respond to expert opinions of engineers who study the effects of wind on actual models of developments.

Typically the anti-development crowd will ask for these studies to throw up a hurdle for developers and then they ignore the results of the study when convenient. I believe Gloria McCluskey did this for example with the original United Gulf towers, stating that it was common sense that buildings create wind problems and that the Maritime Centre did so therefore the United Gulf towers would. This is part of the reason why I do not think she is a very good councillor.

Shadow studies are even more clear-cut since they are a simple question of geometry and again people ignore the results, stating that it's common sense that buildings = shadow. They are provably incorrect to an extent not normally possible in these debates and yet the effect of politics and ignorance is so strong that people remain oblivious.

Folksy "common sense" is not a substitute for science and engineering, but some councillors seem to understand that if you keep saying something it becomes accepted in Halifax because of weak, unquestioning media and a public that generally doesn't know the first thing about these issues.