[Halifax] Artillery Place Landmark | 26 m | 8 fl | Proposed

[Dmajackson]

As rumoured not to long ago the property owner of Artillery Place (between Queen and Dresden) is looking to redevelop the site into a 8-storey residential building with two ground floor commercial pads. The proposal gets introduced to the Design Review Committee next week (March 13th, 2014).

The documents with renderings can be found here. For some reason it downloads the files instead of showing them online so I am providing an indirect link;

http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk...eeMar1314.html

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

As rumoured not to long ago the property owner of Artillery Place (between Queen and Dresden) is looking to redevelop the site into a 8-storey residential building with two ground floor commercial pads. The proposal gets introduced to the Design Review Committee next week (March 13th, 2014).

The documents with renderings can be found here. For some reason it downloads the files instead of showing them online so I am providing an indirect link;

http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk...eeMar1314.html

I took a few screen captures from the link you provided. It looks decent except for the blank wall, which I think is unavoidable unless they buy the adjacent property. It is certainly in a great location being in a scenic area close to shops on Spring Garden Road.

[counterfactual]

Well, this looks great!

[Drybrain]

Yeah, looks like a great example of infilling in a tightly built block. Some of the best new residential architecture in town has been going up around here, too--really urbanizing quickly around here.

[counterfactual]

------
I just heard Waye Mason on CBC Radio saying that the height limit here is 4 stories, and this proposal is 8.

He said the reason for the HRMxD height limit is its proximity to Citadel Hill. And he's not interested in entertaining exceptions.

First, there HAVE been exceptions to HRMxD limits, like the YMCA development in the CBC building. So the idea that exceptions are out of the question is bunk.

Second, Mason has lately been blocking developments everywhere else, and in doing so, always talking about "so many other better places downtown" for modest density developments like this. So here we are, steps from Spring Garden and mid-risers, in the heart of the urban core, and he's trying to kill this development too.

Third, the proximity to Citadel Hill on this is a none issue. There are no viewplanes and, what's more, this is EIGHT stories. Again, entirely modest infill.

The damn thing has just been proposed, and Mason is trying to kill it already. Come on.
---------

[EDIT: keep in mind, I heard this on the radio, so I could be wrong about some of the details].

[Dmajackson]

Just a note the height limit is 16 metres (pre and post-bonus).

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I just heard Waye Mason on CBC Radio saying that the height limit here is 4 stories, and this proposal is 8.

He said the reason for the HRMxD height limit is its proximity to Citadel Hill. And he's not interested in entertaining exceptions.

First, there HAVE been exceptions to HRMxD limits, like the YMCA development in the CBC building. So the idea that exceptions are out of the question is bunk.

Second, Mason has lately been blocking developments everywhere else, and in doing so, always talking about "so many other better places downtown" for modest density developments like this. So here we are, steps from Spring Garden and mid-risers, in the heart of the urban core, and he's trying to kill this development too.

Third, the proximity to Citadel Hill on this is a none issue. There are no viewplanes and, what's more, this is EIGHT stories. Again, entirely modest infill.

The damn thing has just been proposed, and Mason is trying to kill it already. Come on.

How long to the next election???

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

How long to the next election???

Meh... before you have a Waye-roast you should let him have his say. Of all the councillors in HRM, he and Councillor Outhit seem to be making the most sense in the majority of what I read these days.

I say give the man a break.

[kph06]

The YMCA would be getting bonus height due to the "betterment of the community" type clause in HRM by Design. This is the segment developers are being creative with. I was surprised when I heard 8 floors for this site, 4 is more in line to what I assumed they'd be limited to. I bet 6 will become the meet in te middle, that should probably pretty much match the older condo across the street (name is esacaping me at the moment).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Meh... before you have a Waye-roast you should let him have his say. Of all the councillors in HRM, he and Councillor Outhit seem to be making the most sense in the majority of what I read these days.

I say give the man a break.

Yeah, I'm still going to defend Mason because he's a zillion times better than the Hendsbees of the world. He's still a urbanist, and I appreciate that he has a bent towards heritage and holding developers to account. But I fear he's become a bit too kowtow-y to local NIMBY interests.

I'd be fine with this going to six storeys; perfectly reasonable infill height. Four seems too stubby for the neighbourhood, however, especially because the condo across the street (amusingly named "Heritage Way", despite the lack of anything heritage-y about it) is seven storeys. So assuming similar or slightly higher floor-ceiling heights, this one should be able to go to six storeys and have zero impact on the view from the Hill, which is already impinged upon. Plus the Martello tower, literally metres away, is something like twice this tall.

Really, once we start turning down projects in the single digits over height concerns, in the densest neighbourhood in the region, which already has many taller buildings anyway, we're getting ridiculous. I don't want a wall of towers along Brunswick Street turning the city into some sort of mini-Hong Kong, but that's not really a danger, is it?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Meh... before you have a Waye-roast you should let him have his say. Of all the councillors in HRM, he and Councillor Outhit seem to be making the most sense in the majority of what I read these days.

I say give the man a break.

I like Waye, but my patience and support is fraying on his slow transformation into a conservative anti-development NIMBY.

Rather than blaying about height limits, why not take a look at the proposal and acknowledge the obvious positive aspects-- it's a great looking and modest project in an area that SHOULD be targeted for intense densification.

Be *positive* and *constructive* for a change. We don't need a CBC BREAKING NEWS story every time there is a proposal, just to complain about its height.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah, I'm still going to defend Mason because he's a zillion times better than the Hendsbees and Outhits of the world.

I'd be fine with this going to six storeys; perfectly reasonable infill height. Four seems too stubby for the neighbourhood, however.

We're talking about the peninsula. Hendsbee wouldn't be elected here in a thousand years.

It's not an either or. It's south end Halifax NIMBYism or we have to elect Hendsbee or Karston.

FWIW, I like Outhit. He is pretty good on pro-mass transit, pro-downtown investment and battling sprawl, with tax reform, fee levy changes.

Back on Waye, I only heard a radio comment, so I could be wrong. But I took him to oppose ANY bonusing for this proposal, to get it up to 6 storeys. He was opposing it full stop.

[ILoveHalifax]

He's voted against several proposals that I'd like to see built. I don't see much of a difference between Mason and Watts.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by kph06

The YMCA would be getting bonus height due to the "betterment of the community" type clause in HRM by Design. This is the segment developers are being creative with. I was surprised when I heard 8 floors for this site, 4 is more in line to what I assumed they'd be limited to. I bet 6 will become the meet in te middle, that should probably pretty much match the older condo across the street (name is esacaping me at the moment).

I was under the impression the YMCA got a voted exception to HRMxD rules. It went *double* the any post-bonus height allowance. It faces the Citadel.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/6...roject-hearing

[alps]

This project looks fine and fits the neighbourhood well at eight stories. So sick of these absurd controversies, as if it makes much of any visual difference to anyone if the building is shortened to six stories or not. The only difference is density, and we need more density on the peninsula. And if the building were four stories, what are you protecting the view of exactly? The building across the street? What's wrong with the marginally more urban feel of an eight storey building?

I like Halifax and I wouldn't mind coming back if the city were moving in the right direction. But these controversies over utterly TRIVIAL issues get really old, hold the city back and I hope Mason explains his comments here. Wish more people would look more at the greater urban picture and not get so fixated on semantics to the point of speaking out against totally reasonable, innocuous proposals like this.

I love the scale of this one...lots of my favourite areas of some cities are made up of lots of these midrise developments, on small footprints, with retail on the street.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

We're talking about the peninsula. Hendsbee wouldn't be elected here in a thousand years.

It's not an either or. It's south end Halifax NIMBYism or we have to elect Hendsbee or Karston.

FWIW, I like Outhit. He is pretty good on pro-mass transit, pro-downtown investment and battling sprawl, with tax reform, fee levy changes.

Back on Waye, I only heard a radio comment, so I could be wrong. But I took him to oppose ANY bonusing for this proposal, to get it up to 6 storeys. He was opposing it full stop.

Oh, shoot, I actually meant Karston, not Outhit.

I dunno, I didn't hear Waye speak. I'd hope he'd be flexible given that there's already a built precedent, and the view wouldn't be impacted by going to six or so storeys. But I don't know.

The Market Lofts project on Sackville was pretty painlessly cut to eight storeys, so hopefully something can be achieved here. Though that was a small cut, and you can't really chop this in half, unless the entire design of the building changes dramatically. I'm sure this is a case of the developer over-proposing in hopes of achieving a compromise, but I wonder if they'd even be interested in the site if it gets knocked down to four.

Really, I'm supportive of the height limits to a limited extent--the Citadel is an impressive, grand geographic feature that shouldn't be obscured too much, like Montreal's mountain, on a smaller scale.

But this doesn't threaten that at all.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Oh, shoot, I actually meant Karston, not Outhit.

I dunno, I didn't hear Waye speak. I'd hope he'd be flexible given that there's already a built precedent, and the view wouldn't be impacted by going to six or so storeys. But I don't know.

The Market Lofts project on Sackville was pretty painlessly cut to eight storeys, so hopefully something can be achieved here. Though that was a small cut, and you can't really chop this in half, unless the entire design of the building changes dramatically. I'm sure this is a case of the developer over-proposing in hopes of achieving a compromise, but I wonder if they'd even be interested in the site if it gets knocked down to four.

Really, I'm supportive of the height limits to a limited extent--the Citadel is an impressive, grand geographic feature that shouldn't be obscured too much, like Montreal's mountain, on a smaller scale.

But this doesn't threaten that at all.

But do you sincerely think that *this* proposal at 8 storeys does anything to obscure Citadel?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

But do you sincerely think that *this* proposal at 8 storeys does anything to obscure Citadel?

No, I'd be totally happy with this getting built as proposed. It's in a densely built cluster as it is.

I understand that Mason may be in a difficult spot because he can't run around bending the rules for some projects and not for others, but I think this parcel has been assigned an excessively low height limit.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by alps

This project looks fine and fits the neighbourhood well at eight stories. So sick of these absurd controversies, as if it makes much of any visual difference to anyone if the building is shortened to six stories or not. The only difference is density, and we need more density on the peninsula. And if the building were four stories, what are you protecting the view of exactly? The building across the street? What's wrong with the marginally more urban feel of an eight storey building?

I like Halifax and I wouldn't mind coming back if the city were moving in the right direction. But these controversies over utterly TRIVIAL issues get really old, hold the city back and I hope Mason explains his comments here. Wish more people would look more at the greater urban picture and not get so fixated on semantics to the point of speaking out against totally reasonable, innocuous proposals like this.

*exactly*

Our height limit controversies in Halifax are always fought in the abstract. As if we're always battling to stop the CN Tower from being erected in front of Citadel Hill. This proposal makes zero difference at 8 storeys instead of 6 or 4.

The Skye proposal was one of the times where proposed height was truly an abomination, but even there, it barely cut into view planes. Most of the time, we're blindly upholding absurd rules, without asking why the rule is there to begin with. I don't know why 4 storeys is the height limit in that zone. That is ridiculous.

I love Citadel Hill, but I wonder-- has anyone ever done an economic analysis as to the *detrimental* effects that these associated height limits have had on the city over the years? Height limits like this (4 storeys at Dresden and Queen?!?!) seem like a terrible drag on economic development and densification.

Even Parks Canada, FWIW, thinks Citadel needs some improvement. Definitely needs a re-think:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/na...335/story.html

Despite its benefits, I'm slowly coming over to the side of Spatz and Chedrawe of amending HRMxD to improve it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by alps

I like Halifax and I wouldn't mind coming back if the city were moving in the right direction. But these controversies over utterly TRIVIAL issues get really old, hold the city back and I hope Mason explains his comments here. Wish more people would look more at the greater urban picture and not get so fixated on semantics to the point of speaking out against totally reasonable, innocuous proposals like this.

Pedantic height fixation aside, the city is very definitely moving in the right direction. Just a stroll through downtown and the North End reveal that--huge facelifting, re-reinvestment, and urbanization going on. The Spring Garden area overall is seeing major positive change, and Agricola is becoming a true and proper main street. New residential and commercial architecture is rapidly improving, and the retail scene is filling with lots of young entrepreneurs successfully making ambitious new ventures. There's hardly a central neighbourhood not visibly improving and infilling--so I wouldn't let these silly height debates keep you away, annoying as they are. We spend a lot of time talking about them, but the change on the ground over even a couple of years ago is readily apparent. I think it's an optimistic time.