Proposed Developments

These two developments for adjoining properties have been proposed separately but HRM staff has said that they should be considered together, due to their combined impact.


Left: 29-storey development proposed by APL Properties (George Armoyan), with W.M. Fares Group as the architectural consultant. The developer has applied for a development agreement to amend the city’s Land Use By-law to permit this development. This application is Case 18966 on the HRM website.

Right: 25-storey tower proposed by Westwood Construction (Danny Chedrawe), with Kassner Goodspeed Architects as the architectural consultant. The developer has applied for a development agreement to amend the city’s Land Use By-law to permit this development. This application is Case 19281 on the HRM website.

view_from_common_4The image above shows how they would appear from the skateboard park on the Halifax Common.


This is how they would appear from Welsford Park and the houses along Parker Street, one block west of Robie. This view can be compared to the existing view on the Neighbourhood page.

The image below compares the height and proximity of the Westwood tower to a typical house on Parker Street, separated by only a back yard.


This diagram of building heights along on the north side of Quinpool Road, between Oxford Street (on the left) and Robie Street (on the right), shows how APL’s 29-storey development (dark gray) would relate to this urban shopping street.


Together, the developments would include 323 apartments and 305 parking spaces for a population of 847 people. There would also be 81 hotel rooms. The gross site area is 1.57 acre, for a density of 541 people per acre. This density is 45 times higher than the average density on the Halifax Peninsula, 12 persons per acre.

As noted in our editorial “Follow the Rules,” any advantages of these developments would be far outweighed by their disadvantages:

  • Externally, their bulk and height would not be compatible with the surrounding ground-based urban neighbourhood.
  • Internally, they would not contribute anything to the neighbourhood, nor would they reduce homelessness in the city.
  • Environmentally, they would block the sun and create strong wind at ground level and across the Common, including the Oval.
  • Locally, they would increase the number of vehicles and the volume of traffic at this intersection and along the surrounding streets.
  • Economically, they would put upward pressure on property assessments and rents along Quinpool Road, forcing out local businesses.
  • Urbanistically, they would set a precedent for other large corporate developments along Quinpool and Robie.

As developers, citizens, and civic representatives, we can do much better than this.


4 thoughts on “Proposed Developments

  1. Though progress is wonderful and a must, even with the addition of only 14-18 story buildings in this area, the traffic would still be a night mare!!!
    Solve the traffic problems in the area first!!!! Then think about housing that is affordable and fits with the area.


  2. I am really interested in how the HRM Development Agreement process is influenced or not influenced by campaign re-election donations made by Halifax Developers. If particular developers have made donations during past HRM Municipal Elections, does this give them an unfair advantage to secure councillors’ votes when passing/considering their own projects? If so, does this constitute a conflict of interest where some councillors should not be allowed to vote during the Development Agreement Process?
    I’d like to know if the developers involved with these projects made donations to re-election campaigns in HRM.


  3. This comment includes questions about water, from two different aspects, and light. First: Is there any information on what such a huge development will do to the availability of city water: what I mean is, will the water pressure entering the surrounding properties be affected? Second: Will the water table of the adjoining properties be affected by building underground parking / excavation / adding all of the underground concrete to the building sites? Regarding light: I was skating on the Oval in February and noticed that, at 4pm, the shadow cast by the current Armco tower reached onto the surface of the Oval and stretched as the sun set. A tower twice that height will, certainly, cast a much longer shadow. Has any thought been put into the shadows these buildings will cast on the Common? I believe that consideration of this problem was taken into account when the condos were constructed west of the Public Gardens on Summer Street.


    • Our group hasn’t considered the municipal water supply or ground water but those are good questions. Regarding light, we have done some shadow studies to see how much sunlight would be blocked from surrounding areas. Two of these studies are included on the Exceeding Limits page. Indeed, the Oval would be affected.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s