[Sackville] First Lake Plaza | ? M | 2X6 FL | Proposed

[Dmajackson]

First Mutual Properties is proposing a major redevelopment of it's First Lake Plaza property in Lower Sackville.

Case 24508 Details

"The proposed development includes the following:

Sobeys grocery remains on-site unchanged

Tim Horton’s restaurant will be relocated to the eastern end of the site

One (1) residential multiple unit building, and two (2) mixed-use buildings to be added to the property - containing a total of 800 housing units and additional commercial space on the ground floor

The proposed three (3) buildings height range from 6 to 22 storeys

The proposed commercial space is 2,509 sq m2 in area, excluding the existing Sobeys building

462 additional parking stalls below and above ground are proposed to serve the new developments

A network of pedestrian walkways and plazas through the site"

I'm too stunned at reading this proposal to even put thoughts together to start a discussion.

[Jstaleness]

This could really spark the beginning of some significant growth and height in the Sackville area. I'm here for it.

[Patrick Matthews]

I havent fully formed my thoughts on this one yet. Height is needed in Halifax. This isnt exactly a growth area that would support DT growth, however.

The entire First Lake Drive area development (and "C" streets) has approx 200 homes. People suggesting this is out of sorts for the area are not wrong.

Originally 107 project was supposed to serve this area and North Beaverbank, and this project may have made more sense with a near direct access to a highway via nearby Metropolitan Ave. This doesnt have much direct access to much.

It is nice, for a change, to see something that might have some soundproof floors and not the usual 4 story apartment with wood frame construction in the area.

It seems very opportunistic of the developers to capitalize on a small group's park the not for profit operates and is responsible for maintaining. Without the Kinsmen park these are not half as appealing IMO. It also relies on walkability through St Elizabeth Seton parking lot, which does NOT have a right of way and subject to being removed once that space is changed.

Height and units are good, but this is going to need a hell of a lot of infrastructure investment in the surrounding area. Glendale is already at capacity during rushhour (which is really about 3 hours on either side); Sackville Fire Dept will surely need different equipment; schools are making use of mods in the area; etc.

Overall I was surprised to see this given it was not on one of the 8/9 areas identified for rapid growth, and this area was done growing when the 107 connection was cancelled an the new Provincial Park declared.

Wonder what a view of the lake will run on these?

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I have limited knowledge of this area of Sackville but in general I think it's a good idea to have multiple centres within a larger urban area...I've probably just stated the obvious. What's missing in our city is a framework of infrastructure that would guide developments such as this one to obvious areas. With a lack of guiding infrastructure, I guess we should be prepared to be surprised when such developments pop-up in odd places and also be prepared to continually pay for playing catch-up to install roads from these developments to existing highways due to this citys lack of a mass transit option.

[mcmcclassic]

I lived in Sackville my entire childhood and this news is crazy to see. My last trip home was in September and the whole area was almost unrecognizable - getting a building over 6 stories could start a massive boom and perhaps allow the Downsview area to get some actual towers!

[Hali87]

Huddle: Will A Major Apartment Development Help Lower Sackville Fight Zero Percent Vacancy?

Upland Studio has filed an application to pave the way for the development at the Sackville Town Centre on First Lake Drive, where a Sobeys and Tim Hortons currently sit. The developer has proposed the new buildings stretch from six to 22 storeys.

Lower Sackville Councillor Paul Russell says the company has submitted an application to ask for amendments to the existing development agreement for the shopping area. The move is being made because of current height restrictions.

He adds it’s still early in the process; Upland’s application is only in the review stage and has not yet been approved.


...

The developer is working with the city’s planning department to refine and revise the application. Under the plan, the Sobeys at the Sackville Town Centre would stay put while Tim Hortons would be relocated to make way for the towers.

...

If approved, the development would see one residential, multiple-unit building and two mixed-use buildings added to the property. There would be 800 housing units along with additional commercial space on the ground floor.

The proposal includes 462 additional parking stalls below and above the ground. The site could also contain a network of pedestrian walkways and tree-lined plazas.

...

Russell believes they will help to ease the burden of the housing crunch a little bit. He says the ideal vacancy rate for the area is three-to-four percent.

“That provides a little bit of flexibility for those looking for an apartment so that landlords aren’t necessarily able to charge whatever the heck they want, and people have options available,” Russell says. “And those options simply don’t exist right now. When that happens, it’ll be easier. What that does in relation to this development, I don’t know, it is still way too early to know.

Russell expects the public consultation phase will be carried out in the new year with notice being sent in the mail to residents in the community.

Moderor's Note: I moved this post to the appropriate thread

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Huddle: Will A Major Apartment Development Help Lower Sackville Fight Zero Percent Vacancy?

Predictably. people are already complaining about the height and the fact their view of the parking lot and grocery store will be obscured. Fun fact, these same people complain about housing prices and the lack of housing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kzt79

Predictably. people are already complaining about the height and the fact their view of the parking lot and grocery store will be obscured. Fun fact, these same people complain about housing prices and the lack of housing.

Who are "these people", and how do we know who is complaining about what? I think people just like to complain, even people complaining about people complaining...

[Keith P.]

I am unsure if it is this proposal or a different one, but I heard chatter this past week that a development in Sackville was significantly downsized from what was originally proposed, and the 20+ floor tower proposal was sawed off to 4-5 storeys, along with a reduction to under 200 total new housing units. This was, I'd guess, the result of the public participation process. Anyone able to confirm?

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am unsure if it is this proposal or a different one, but I heard chatter this past week that a development in Sackville was significantly downsized from what was originally proposed, and the 20+ floor tower proposal was sawed off to 4-5 storeys, along with a reduction to under 200 total new housing units. This was, I'd guess, the result of the public participation process. Anyone able to confirm?

My Google phone delivered a story about this from HalifaxExaminer.ca yesterday. Due to the community backlash the developer is proposing two six story buildings rather than a single 22 story tower. ...this from the story headline only as I don't pay for that site and wasn't able to access the body of the article. I see this as another example of failed leadership from our city council.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

My Google phone delivered a story about this from HalifaxExaminer.ca yesterday. Due to the community backlash the developer is proposing two six story buildings rather than a single 22 story tower. ...this from the story headline only as I don't pay for that site and wasn't able to access the body of the article. I see this as another example of failed leadership from our city council.

Given the idiot councillor for the area, I can't say I'm surprised.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

My Google phone delivered a story about this from HalifaxExaminer.ca yesterday. Due to the community backlash the developer is proposing two six story buildings rather than a single 22 story tower. ...this from the story headline only as I don't pay for that site and wasn't able to access the body of the article. I see this as another example of failed leadership from our city council.

On a Halifax reddit ama Waye Mason was asked about this. He was disappointed, saying Suburban councilors need to understand that planning for doubling the population in HRM means they will.need to be prepared for double the population in their areas too. They can't cry for more services, more transit, etc. without accepting more density.

At any rate, he said he went back and looked at this proposal specifically and noted that the 6 story buildings are part of the original proposal and at the back of the property. Waye thinks that rather than fighting, the developer is getting on with it and building the low rises first (it would have been phased anyway) and waiting to revisit the taller builds once the Regional Plan is implemented.

[Patrick Matthews]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

On a Halifax reddit ama Waye Mason was asked about this. He was disappointed, saying Suburban councilors need to understand that planning for doubling the population in HRM means they will.need to be prepared for double the population in their areas too. They can't cry for more services, more transit, etc. without accepting more density.

He might be right on the more density might result in more services, but its idiotic to think population is going to increase linearly in each district.

Some areas might double, but dt should increase 10 fold before some areas increase 50% let alone 100%.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Patrick Matthews

He might be right on the more density might result in more services, but its idiotic to think population is going to increase linearly in each district.

Some areas might double, but dt should increase 10 fold before some areas increase 50% let alone 100%.

Yes, but municipally serviced suburban areas with a lot of infrastructure capacity and relatively central locations should be prime densification areas.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

On a Halifax reddit ama Waye Mason was asked about this. He was disappointed, saying Suburban councilors need to understand that planning for doubling the population in HRM means they will.need to be prepared for double the population in their areas too. They can't cry for more services, more transit, etc. without accepting more density.

At any rate, he said he went back and looked at this proposal specifically and noted that the 6 story buildings are part of the original proposal and at the back of the property. Waye thinks that rather than fighting, the developer is getting on with it and building the low rises first (it would have been phased anyway) and waiting to revisit the taller builds once the Regional Plan is implemented.

Thanks for this info. Seems like a smart move by the developer.

[Stuckinsky]

[mleblanc]

Hope the NIMBYs are happy with this win. Looks awful.

[Patrick Matthews]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Hope the NIMBYs are happy with this win. Looks awful.

What's the win here? From what I can see the developer has broken the project into chunks, starting with what looks to be substantially the same building(s) going up furthest back leaving the footprint for the biggest buildings still.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by Patrick Matthews

What's the win here? From what I can see the developer has broken the project into chunks, starting with what looks to be substantially the same building(s) going up furthest back leaving the footprint for the biggest buildings still.

I was going off this comment above:

Due to the community backlash the developer is proposing two six story buildings rather than a single 22 story tower. ...this from the story headline only as I don't pay for that site and wasn't able to access the body of the article. I see this as another example of failed leadership from our city council.

So I assumed the rest of the project was dead, and this was what we were left with. The win for the NIMBYs would be that the residents would protect their beautiful, historic parking lot. I'm still hoping this isn't the case, and we get the full proposal built.

[Patrick Matthews]

If I were to bet, Id suggest its been broken into chunks, not replaced with this one only.
Get the density nearby, then use it to lobby for additional density.

Regarding the development as a whole, I have mixed feelings, but the biggest issue to me is the developers would effectively have the Kinsmen park as an amenity for their tenants. Without a sizeable contribution to the Kinsmen, that doesnt pass my sniff test. This isnt a typical HRM park or greenspace theyd be enjoying.