[Halifax] The Cunard (1475 Lower Water) | 57 m | 19 fl | U/C

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

There's a fleet fuel card in each car and you're responsible for ensuring it's returned with at least half a tank.

CarShare does the regular maintenance like oil changes, fluid top-ups, cleaning, and swapping out summer tires for winter.

Thanks for the info!

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

... The "flex" cars make it easier because you don't have to specify an end time when you book the car. With the "fixed" cars you have to say something like, "I want it from 2 to 4 on Tuesday", but I definitely had a few times where meetings went long or there was traffic and it was stressful getting it back in time...

Is there a difference in fees between flex and fixed?

Originally Posted by IanWatson

...CarShare does the regular maintenance like...swapping out summer tires for winter.

There's another difference from rentals, which don't tend to have winter tires.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Is there a difference in fees between flex and fixed?

Yes. Kind of. Flex has a really high time rate and no distance rate. Standard charges you a lower time rate but also charges by distance. BUT if you use a flex car CarShare gives you the best rate for your trip (i.e. they'll charge you the cheaper of the flex structure or the standard structure).

All in all the flex cars are way better; I'm glad they introduced them. The only downside of them is that they can only be booked as early as 30 minutes in advance, and there's no guarantee that there will be one in your neighbourhood (since people can drop them anywhere in the zone). So if you know you have a meeting on Monday and you want to be guaranteed a car, you need to book a standard car.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

They're located all around the city instead of at central rental locations, and you can drop them off anywhere within the zone.

The huge difference though is that you only use them for as long as you need. I would never rent a car to go to a one hour meeting, but I would do that with a CarShare. The "flex" cars make it easier because you don't have to specify an end time when you book the car. With the "fixed" cars you have to say something like, "I want it from 2 to 4 on Tuesday", but I definitely had a few times where meetings went long or there was traffic and it was stressful getting it back in time.

I've rented a car to go to a meeting. Was a couple of hours, not much distance. I think it cost me $25 or $30. Probably less than cabfare and certainly quicker.

I still fail to see why HRM keeps giving this operation special privileges since they are simply a tweak on the usual rental car model.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

... I still fail to see why HRM keeps giving this operation special privileges since they are simply a tweak on the usual rental car model.

What are the privileges that the city provides to Car Share?

Last time I looked at Car Share, I remember thinking the cost was higher than rental for the types of uses for which I would have accessed a car... But that was back when Enterprise (??) was fairly central on the Peninsula, on Agricola St. where the axe-throwing bar is now. I have a car now, so haven't really considered the relative merits for some time.

[someone123]

Has anybody heard news about this one? Will Southwest begin construction as soon as they wrap up their project on South Park Street?

In 2 years maybe this one will be well underway along with Skye and the Ralston.

[IanWatson]

It actually came up at DRC last night. I couldn't hear very well but what I gathered was that somebody had submitted a petition regarding this project, and the committee was voting to receive the petition and pass it onto staff to review and bring back when the proposal comes back to DRC (sounded like that'll be sometime soon).

[someone123]

Construction on this one is set to start in early 2021. Not sure if that's the start of excavation or footings: https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/busine...r-them-476346/

The article is unfortunately paywalled but has some interesting comments from Jim Spatz about Southwest Properties and covid.

[Dmajackson]

This goes to Design Review Committee next week. Staff is recommending against the large amount of requested variances.

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...2708Report.pdf

[Keith P.]

I don't totally disagree with the recommendation, as the design is not particularly inspired and seems hamstrung by having the tower build on top of a parking podium. And it certainly is anything but a slim tower. Still, it is hard to understand how so much time and effort could be expended on a proposal that is so off-side. Looks quite possible that this site will remain undeveloped for a number of years.

[Jonovision]

I'm happy to see quite a strong staff report to recommend against this. I can't recall reading any other staff report that had such strong language to refuse a proposal.

Conclusion from the report:
Staff advise that the proposed development and the requested variances are not reasonably consistent with the objectives and guidelines of the Design Manual. Staff note that the number of variances, and the scale of each variance suggest that the proposed building is too large for the site given the requirements of the Land Use By-law. Further, any attempt to shift the building around on the site in its current form, results in the triggering of a new set of variances. Therefore, it is recommended that the substantive site
plan approval application be refused, for the reasons outlined in this report and in Attachment D.


The final iteration of the building found in this report is far from what was originally envisioned and is far from anything I would want to see on the waterfront.

I hope that the DRC heeds the report and tells Southwest to go back to the drawing board on this one.

I also think we have a great example now of good waterfront development with the Queens Marque. It demonstrates how all of the requirements can be met in a meaningful and well thought out design that creates a building that we can all be happy to have in our city.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I'm happy to see quite a strong staff report to recommend against this. I can't recall reading any other staff report that had such strong language to refuse a proposal.

Conclusion from the report:
Staff advise that the proposed development and the requested variances are not reasonably consistent with the objectives and guidelines of the Design Manual. Staff note that the number of variances, and the scale of each variance suggest that the proposed building is too large for the site given the requirements of the Land Use By-law. Further, any attempt to shift the building around on the site in its current form, results in the triggering of a new set of variances. Therefore, it is recommended that the substantive site
plan approval application be refused, for the reasons outlined in this report and in Attachment D.


The final iteration of the building found in this report is far from what was originally envisioned and is far from anything I would want to see on the waterfront.

I hope that the DRC heeds the report and tells Southwest to go back to the drawing board on this one.

I also think we have a great example now of good waterfront development with the Queens Marque. It demonstrates how all of the requirements can be met in a meaningful and well thought out design that creates a building that we can all be happy to have in our city.

Absolutely agree. Walked by Queens Marque tonight and it is stunning in person. The lighting and stone at street level is really something. I want to like the Cunard proposal but the newest rendition with the massive above ground parking garage just seems off to me for the waterfront. I hope they go back to the drawing board as well on this one, and this is coming from someone who is incredibly pro-development.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't totally disagree with the recommendation, as the design is not particularly inspired and seems hamstrung by having the tower build on top of a parking podium. And it certainly is anything but a slim tower. Still, it is hard to understand how so much time and effort could be expended on a proposal that is so off-side. Looks quite possible that this site will remain undeveloped for a number of years.

The porcelain tile clad "band" of parkade floors seems unusual and unlikely to turn out well. How come this one has above ground parking when Bishop's Landing was below ground?

This is another site that appears compromised by a low height limit that doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. A point tower, set atop a medium-scale podium, would be much better here. Instead we have blob-like massing everywhere and developers try to spread towers out horizontally.

The public space seems a bit bland too. Bike stalls and planters. This is space provided beyond the large boardwalk that's already there. I think it would be better to try to arrange for purposeful public spaces along the waterfront instead of simply focusing on how much space is allocated to the public, although I guess there might be flexibility to find uses in the future. Queen's Marque does a good job of defining a unique new public space.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Still, it is hard to understand how so much time and effort could be expended on a proposal that is so off-side.

They're confident they can get the variances.

The DRC has, as far as I know, only ever turned down one proposal. It was the small site on Barrington across from the Superstore's gas bar. The applicant sent an architect to represent them who wasn't actually the architect on the project (his partner had designed it), knew nothing about the project, was basically retired already and had zero enthusiasm for it, and couldn't answer any of the DRC's questions.

As it stands now, the DRC is set up to fail. By the time a proposal gets to the DRC it is basically fully fleshed out. Any substantial changes at that point can mean 10s or even 100s of thousands of dollars in redesign. It also means you have to restart the whole HRM design review process again (public meetings, staff review, etc.) which can mean a year delay to the project. The DRC has a lot of industry people who know what a burden this is; to impose that burden requires a very strong reason.

Also, because the DRC has a bunch of industry people there's a lot of hesitation to piss anyone off. I'm not at all suggesting that anyone is on the take or anything like that--the members are good people. But there's an inherent hesitation to piss off colleagues or potential clients unless you have a a very, very good reason to do so. You also have to feel like you can convince enough of the other members to be successful in saying 'no' or else you've pissed people off for literally no benefit.

[alps]

Anyone know the outcome of today's DRC meeting?

[AdAstra]

Originally Posted by alps

Anyone know the outcome of today's DRC meeting?

It's been approved! The only variance that was rejected was the size of the balconies. Between Cunard Block, Queen's Marque and the new art gallery I think we've got a lot to be excited about!

[Jonovision]

This is not going to be a good addition to the waterfront and will not compare to Queen's Marque and the new Art Gallery. Those are projects with a lot of care taken to be the best quality they can be. This is no better than what goes up along the highway.

The draft meeting minutes should be available within 24 hrs of the meeting according to the DRC website.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This is not going to be a good addition to the waterfront and will not compare to Queen's Marque and the new Art Gallery. Those are projects with a lot of care taken to be the best quality they can be. This is no better than what goes up along the highway.

Have you seen any details yet for the art gallery?

I agree that this one seems a bit compromised compared to say Queen's Marque, but I think it is nicer than most suburban projects and much nicer than the parking lot that's there now. I don't think it'll be a disaster. Perhaps a bit of a missed opportunity, since there are so few of these prime waterfront sites.

[someone123]

One of the renderings from the report:

[kph06]

Southwest typically does high quality work, but there is a bit about this that doesn't seem completely fair. I believe the original RFP that Waterfront Development had developers submit proposals which wouldn't have required so many variances and it required below grade parking. Lots of variance requests come up during planning, but the change to above ground parking significantly changes the economics of the project. That seems like that should have been a hard yes or no at the start so all bidders were on level ground. Armour spent almost a year building a parking garage in the harbour, this project will skip that.

One thing that jumped out on the latest plan is the white balcony rails, mainly because the south facing balconies on Queen's Marque have this too. They stick out on that project because they seem out of character with the rest of the building, there are also white patio door frames which add to it. Its a minor thing on a great looking building, but seems like an oversight.