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

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I serious wonder if when they say 16 storeys they are thinking of the CIBC tower in downtown Halifax and when they think of 20 storeys they might be thinking of the Bell Aliant tower. These are much taller than residential towers with the similar number of floors.

Yeah, it can be variable, and the discrepancy between a low-ceiling building and a high-ceiling building gets greater with every floor added. I guess this should really be defined in metres.

[Keith P.]

Not only are many/most Halifax residents height-phobic, but it appears HRM planners and council members are as well. Ridiculous.

[Colin May]

George will moan a bit and then take the 20 storeys, he's owned the building for decades and made a pot of money from it. He'll take a deal and get on with the project.
His name doesn't appear on the donors list of Waye Mason but Jim Spatz,George Lawen do.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Colin May

George will moan a bit and then take the 20 storeys, he's owned the building for decades and made a pot of money from it. He'll take a deal and get on with the project.
His name doesn't appear on the donors list of Waye Mason but Jim Spatz,George Lawen do.

I expect we'll see a redesign that involves a shorter but wider tower.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I expect we'll see a redesign that involves a shorter but wider tower.

And then the tower will cast wider shadows that transition over the commons at a much slower pace thus making no one happy.

To the earlier points, I wish staff, council and the media would start using height in meters to describe projects as that is what is in the bylaws and what can be measured and compared easily. One of last weeks articles about this story had a sentence that read something along the lines of "This building is not suitable because you have the 18 storey Wellsford and then the 52 meter Atlantica Hotel". Let's just pick one accurate form of measurement and stick with it!

[RoshanMcG]

Armco has created a survey to give your opinion on the building and the amendments.

Survey

[TheNovaScotian]

I know he frequents this page, I have to ask why Councillor of District 5 Sam Austin, as well as my own Councillor Waye Mason would vote in favour of cutting a third of the height of this building?

It's quite hilarious that members of this site after being elected take an opposing view on height, in fear of upsetting the same special interest groups that are reviled here.

[Colin May]

The centre plan proposes that a building cannot cast a shadow greater than 20m long on certain parks,including Halifax Common,during the period 10a.m. - 4 p.m from March 21- September 21.
The centre plan shows the Armco property being allowed a greater height than proposed project by Chedrawe on Robie.
Everything changed on election night, the build anything of any height group are now in the minority and there are other significant policy changes about to be unveiled, none are related to development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I know he frequents this page, I have to ask why Councillor of District 5 Sam Austin, as well as my own Councillor Waye Mason would vote in favour of cutting a third of the height of this building?

It's quite hilarious that members of this site after being elected take an opposing view on height, in fear of upsetting the same special interest groups that are reviled here.

They're sell outs. Period.

There is no reason to have any amount of height cut from any of the buildings proposed along Robie.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Everything changed on election night, the build anything of any height group are now in the minority and there are other significant policy changes about to be unveiled, none are related to development.

Explain?

[Keith P.]

Well, HRM is seeking city-state powers from the province to enable them, among other things, to initiate social programs using their excess of tax dollars. They are reviving the move to erase Cornwallis from history of the city thanks to revisionist "progressives". The same group hates cars and their drivers so they want to reduce speed limits in the city. Unused bile lanes continue to be created to further punish drivers by removing on-street parking. Halifax Water continues to operate unchecked. The list goes on.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I know he frequents this page, I have to ask why Councillor of District 5 Sam Austin, as well as my own Councillor Waye Mason would vote in favour of cutting a third of the height of this building?

No one has "cut" a third of the height from the building. There was no building. There was little more than a drawing, of a proposed building which would exceed both the current permitted height, and the (higher) proposed future height. No one was under any obligation to support the proposal. 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, and not start granting exemptions before the thing is already in place, thereby rendering the document meaningless.

The above conspiracy mongering about certain councillors is even more embarrassing than the skyscrapers-or-death brigade.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

No one has "cut" a third of the height from the building. There was no building. There was little more than a drawing, of a proposed building which would exceed both the current permitted height, and the (higher) proposed future height. No one was under any obligation to support the proposal. 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, and not start granting exemptions before the thing is already in place, thereby rendering the document meaningless.

The above conspiracy mongering about certain councillors is even more embarrassing than the skyscrapers-or-death brigade.

Well, that is all a bit over-the-top.

The previous Council which was not anti-development overall gave direction to proceed with the process for a 29-storey proposal. Post-election the anti-development, anti-height "progressives" have the majority so they did in fact cut a third of the height that was in-process. They are using the ridiculous Centre Plan as justification, which was developed much like HRMxD was, pandering to the same antis. Keep in mind that the CP is not legislation or bylaw. It too is merely an idea. To use it as justification is flimsy at best, but it makes a convenient smokescreen for the antis to use.

What is truly embarrassing is how our elected reps keep pandering to people for whom 6 floors is a highrise and who keep trying to maintain Halifax as a small Victorian town.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

No one has "cut" a third of the height from the building. There was no building. There was little more than a drawing, of a proposed building which would exceed both the current permitted height, and the (higher) proposed future height. No one was under any obligation to support the proposal. 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, and not start granting exemptions before the thing is already in place, thereby rendering the document meaningless.

The above conspiracy mongering about certain councillors is even more embarrassing than the skyscrapers-or-death brigade.

The development was proposed before the future plan, so why would getting an exemption (amendment?) or its treatment subject to anything but the existing rules that allow for the possibility to make adjustments? These lots are ideal for height. If not here, where???

If you're talking about getting everyone on the same page, you're not including many people who think we need to build thinner and reduce outward sprawl. You're literally saying we should enforce rules before they come into effect when the original plans were put together under a different regime.

The only embarrassing thing is mediocrity in this city.

This is like when people say "amendments" are illegal. The height phobic side can't concede and Halifax will sprawl. Its a joke, really.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

No one has "cut" a third of the height from the building. There was no building. There was little more than a drawing, of a proposed building which would exceed both the current permitted height, and the (higher) proposed future height. No one was under any obligation to support the proposal. 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, and not start granting exemptions before the thing is already in place, thereby rendering the document meaningless.

The above conspiracy mongering about certain councillors is even more embarrassing than the skyscrapers-or-death brigade.

Once again... you're on a Skyscraper forum. The URL is www.skyscraperpage.com

Again, if not on this lot, where do you propose? Also, please explain the logic behind arbitrary height limits or how this doesn't cause the Larry Utek type of stuff we're seeing. I really want to know.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

... explain the logic behind arbitrary height limits or how this doesn't cause the Larry Utek type of stuff we're seeing. I really want to know.

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

I do think that surrounding the common is probably the best spot for increased heights in the city. Just don't ask me exactly WHAT height equals "increased heights."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Once again... you're on a Skyscraper forum. The URL is www.skyscraperpage.com

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...

Again, if not on this lot, where do you propose? Also, please explain the logic behind arbitrary height limits or how this doesn't cause the Larry Utek type of stuff we're seeing. I really want to know.

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.

[JET]

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.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The development was proposed before the future plan, so why would getting an exemption (amendment?) or its treatment subject to anything but the existing rules that allow for the possibility to make adjustments? These lots are ideal for height. If not here, where???

Well, the current height limit is ten storeys. Of course the city could implement a specific development agreement permitting more, but we're talking triple the current height. Again, I'd be fine with a 29-storey (or taller) building here. But it's not like this proposal was a shoe-in and had the rug pulled from under it.

The Centre Plan exists, it's what we have now, and we should stick to it so that we can avoid all of the interminable pissing contests between activists, developers, etc that have characterized the past few years. When it comes up for renewal in five years (I think?) citizens can petition for changes, including greater height.

[bluenoser]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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".

I don't think that's really accurate. What they seem to be saying is: this plan, exactly in its current form, 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.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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.

I wholeheartedly agree, but this further consideration should happen before the 'plan' is acclaimed as the rule of law, and used to further suppress developments.