PDA

View Full Version : [Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

counterfactual
Apr 28, 2014, 7:39 PM
There was actually a lively debate about the convention centre siting in this thread.. back in 2008.



I agree with this. These two blocks were terrible prior to this development. Even the lower block with the Herald building was ugly and fit in poorly with the rest of Argyle Street. Most of the ground floor of the Herald was blank walls. The building itself was not a loss and the Nova Centre looks like it will be a dramatic improvement, even if it's not without its own flaws or compromises.

Totally. And wasn't much of the lot across from different bars on Argyle just a big, empty, ugly parking lot?

hokus83
Apr 28, 2014, 7:49 PM
My hugest pet peeve about the design is that it fit in very poorly with the surrounding area, I wish it had a bit more color to it like the Montreal convention center. Argyle and the area around it has so much character to it that I feel this needs a bit more colourful feel to it, that boat has probably already sailed on the design aspect, I really wish the first 3 or 4 floors had something a little more interesting at street level than walls of clear glass
http://www.ica2013montreal.org/images/images_top_palais.jpg

someone123
Apr 28, 2014, 9:32 PM
My hugest pet peeve about the design is that it fit in very poorly with the surrounding area, I wish it had a bit more color to it like the Montreal convention center. Argyle and the area around it has so much character to it that I feel this needs a bit more colourful feel to it, that boat has probably already sailed on the design aspect[/IMG]

I bet design elements like the colours of the building or style of the art installations could still be changed.

I agree that the colours come off a bit bland in the renderings. The ballroom will have some bright blue spandrel and the rest will be grey (spandrel or stone at ground level) or clear.

Hopefully the public art will be interesting.

someone123
Apr 28, 2014, 9:36 PM
Totally. And wasn't much of the lot across from different bars on Argyle just a big, empty, ugly parking lot?

Before Rank acquired the lots the Herald building covered the entirety of the lower block and the Midtown was on the northeast corner of the upper block. I've seen photos from the 70's and 80's of other small buildings on the upper block but I think they were torn down 15+ years ago (there used to be similar small buildings where the MetroPark is today, and the TexPark was on the United Gulf site).

Around 2006 or so there was a proposal for the Midtown site that would have covered maybe 1/3-1/4 of the north end of that block, but it wasn't approved:

http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/slides/Midtown-4.jpg
Source (http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/)

In retrospect it's kind of ironic because the same STV crowd that shot this one down paved the way for the much larger Nova Centre project on this site. Back when the Midtown was proposed it registered as a major, high-quality project in Halifax; back then I never would have expected something like the Nova Centre to be proposed a few years later.

hokus83
Apr 28, 2014, 10:06 PM
Before Rank acquired the lots the Herald building covered the entirety of the lower block and the Midtown was on the northeast corner of the upper block. I've seen photos from the 70's and 80's of other small buildings on the upper block but I think they were torn down 15+ years ago (there used to be similar small buildings where the MetroPark is today, and the TexPark was on the United Gulf site).

Around 2006 or so there was a proposal for the Midtown site that would have covered maybe 1/3-1/4 of the north end of that block, but it wasn't approved:

http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/slides/Midtown-4.jpg
Source (http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/)



This is the kind of thing I would love to see on Market street and fill one of the vacant lots on both Market and Prince and Market and Sackville. I really think this its going to be important to fill those holes with something once the Nova Centre is built and hopefully a proposal and approval of a midrise at each corner would wouldn't be such of a issue now that we have this being built.

counterfactual
Apr 28, 2014, 10:48 PM
Before Rank acquired the lots the Herald building covered the entirety of the lower block and the Midtown was on the northeast corner of the upper block. I've seen photos from the 70's and 80's of other small buildings on the upper block but I think they were torn down 15+ years ago (there used to be similar small buildings where the MetroPark is today, and the TexPark was on the United Gulf site).

Around 2006 or so there was a proposal for the Midtown site that would have covered maybe 1/3-1/4 of the north end of that block, but it wasn't approved:

http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/slides/Midtown-4.jpg
Source (http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/)

In retrospect it's kind of ironic because the same STV crowd that shot this one down paved the way for the much larger Nova Centre project on this site. Back when the Midtown was proposed it registered as a major, high-quality project in Halifax; back then I never would have expected something like the Nova Centre to be proposed a few years later.

Street level design could be much better, but not bad at all.

I'd love to see a consultant or economist crunch some numbers and try to estimate how many great developments and economic benefits / development has been lost over the years, caused by the STVers and all the great proposals these conniving jerks have killed over the years.

Colin May
Apr 28, 2014, 11:46 PM
Street level design could be much better, but not bad at all.

I'd love to see a consultant or economist crunch some numbers and try to estimate how many great developments and economic benefits / development has been lost over the years, caused by the STVers and all the great proposals these conniving jerks have killed over the years.

Far better to assess the massive and ongoing subsidies to the industrial parks, most of which have very little industry and huge amounts of retail. Land which was sold well below the cost of staff, whose sole job was promoting and selling the areas, and not to forget the cost of surveys, rock breaking, levelling of lots,streets, sewer, water, sidewalks, and maintenance of property which belonged to the province.
The original development of Burnside was a private sector effort but once Dartmouth decided to become a developer the private Commodore Commercial Estates could not compete with taxpayer subsidised development primarily designed to steal businesses from Halifax.

The land that is now Dartmouth Crossing was owned by the Whebby family and Dartmouth made sure that the property was never within the development boundary citing the lack of water and sewer capacity.
The office tower boom of 30+ years ago was aided by the stubborness of Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and the resultant move of oil rigs and offices to Halifax which brought lots of activity and many dry holes, an expanding federal and provincial civil service also helped developers as governments willingly became anchor tenants on long term leases and the landlord then offered better rates to tenants who needed less space.
Queens Square in downtown Dartmouth was a high rise flop for many years until the federal government took some office space and the province also took space.
With federal downsizing and cost cutting, a deeply indebted province, and more cost conscience lawyers and accountants the glory days of big tenants anchoring new developments may be gone. And the HECC approving five 5 storey office towers against the advice of the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission a shift of office space out of the center may increase.
The Turner report on office space demand of several years ago was so realistic and uncomfortable for HRM staff that they delayed tabling it at council and stamped every page 'DRAFT' and then it disappeared from all discussion at city hall.

counterfactual
Apr 29, 2014, 12:49 AM
Far better to assess the massive and ongoing subsidies to the industrial parks, most of which have very little industry and huge amounts of retail. Land which was sold well below the cost of staff, whose sole job was promoting and selling the areas, and not to forget the cost of surveys, rock breaking, levelling of lots,streets, sewer, water, sidewalks, and maintenance of property which belonged to the province.
The original development of Burnside was a private sector effort but once Dartmouth decided to become a developer the private Commodore Commercial Estates could not compete with taxpayer subsidised development primarily designed to steal businesses from Halifax.

The land that is now Dartmouth Crossing was owned by the Whebby family and Dartmouth made sure that the property was never within the development boundary citing the lack of water and sewer capacity.
The office tower boom of 30+ years ago was aided by the stubborness of Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and the resultant move of oil rigs and offices to Halifax which brought lots of activity and many dry holes, an expanding federal and provincial civil service also helped developers as governments willingly became anchor tenants on long term leases and the landlord then offered better rates to tenants who needed less space.
Queens Square in downtown Dartmouth was a high rise flop for many years until the federal government took some office space and the province also took space.
With federal downsizing and cost cutting, a deeply indebted province, and more cost conscience lawyers and accountants the glory days of big tenants anchoring new developments may be gone. And the HECC approving five 5 storey office towers against the advice of the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission a shift of office space out of the center may increase.
The Turner report on office space demand of several years ago was so realistic and uncomfortable for HRM staff that they delayed tabling it at council and stamped every page 'DRAFT' and then it disappeared from all discussion at city hall.

You don't have to say so twice. I'd be on board with that as well.

We all know about these events, how things happened, from a macro level. But what I want to know, is who was driving these changes? Was it just lazy HRM staff with little direction? Or something more sinister?

Why would the Turner Report be so "uncomfortable" for HRM staff? It showed they were complicit in killing office occupancy downtown?

I suppose one benefit of amalgamation is that it ended this sort of douchebag development policy, with different sprawl communities selling off their lands in the middle of nowhere, for cheap, to suck business out of the downtown core. A veritable race to the bottom for increasingly shrinking dollars, as land was sold cheaper and cheaper.

fenwick16
Apr 29, 2014, 2:14 AM
Many thanks to Ziobrop for all the construction pictures of the Nova Centre. I find it fascinating to see how the car ramps are being constructed. I am looking forwarded to seeing your ongoing Roy Building demolition and construction pictures.

(source: Ziobrop - http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/ )
http://31.media.tumblr.com/bf996188d867c3328e9f0f9b98505026/tumblr_n4qyd1TamZ1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

Ziobrop
Apr 29, 2014, 12:19 PM
Many thanks to Ziobrop for all the construction pictures of the Nova Centre. I find it fascinating to see how the car ramps are being constructed. I am looking forwarded to seeing your ongoing Roy Building demolition and construction pictures.


Thanks,
Have you also Seen this One - Progress on 1592 Barrington http://cdplus.tumblr.com/

halifaxboyns
Apr 29, 2014, 9:59 PM
The live video feed is not working; but I'm listening to the audio while I clear a whole bunch of things at work.
The first speaker...riot. You'd think the world would end if we approved Nova Centre. Good for council to sticking to the process and calling people out for not sticking to the topic.

halifaxboyns
Apr 29, 2014, 10:15 PM
As I feared - the speakers are not sticking to topic. It's going from talking about fire and brimstone; the 3 level of government contributions to the titanic.

DigitalNinja
Apr 29, 2014, 10:49 PM
Are they just having the discussion tonight? Or are they going to vote on the amendments?

counterfactual
Apr 30, 2014, 12:39 AM
The live video feed is not working; but I'm listening to the audio while I clear a whole bunch of things at work.
The first speaker...riot. You'd think the world would end if we approved Nova Centre. Good for council to sticking to the process and calling people out for not sticking to the topic.

It's the usual STV / Heritage Trust People (they're the same group). They basically said the Nova Centre would lead to:

* Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling.
* Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
* The dead rising from the grave.
* Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria.

A few developers like Ghosn and Chedrawe voiced moderate support.

And then a couple random people who gave a few thoughts, for and against.

Keith P.
Apr 30, 2014, 12:53 AM
It's the usual STV / Heritage Trust People (they're the same group). They basically said the Nova Centre would lead to:

* Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling.
* Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
* The dead rising from the grave.
* Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria.

A few developers like Ghosn and Chedrawe voiced moderate support.

And then a couple random people who gave a few thoughts, for and against.

Oh, so it's just a normal public hearing about any development taller than 2 floors downtown. Gotcha.

halifaxboyns
Apr 30, 2014, 1:01 AM
Approved. Watts was the only vote against. Still some concerns about closing Grafton but time to move on.

Keith P.
Apr 30, 2014, 1:27 AM
I'm not sure Watts has ever voted in favor of any development. Seriously.

Jstaleness
Apr 30, 2014, 1:35 AM
I can't think of any Keith.

Empire
Apr 30, 2014, 2:32 AM
None of the negative nellies mentioned what a blight Grafton St. was for 35 years on downtown. How can a vibrant Convention Centre be worse than the weed infested abandoned lot that sat beside the Midtown for so long? What would infuse more life to the street? I didn't hear any suggestions.

Blight on downtown gone with the negative nellies:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.646071,-63.57498,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNTeQjPkFOnFAEjDGQ85kPQ!2e0

teddifax
Apr 30, 2014, 4:02 AM
Here, here!!! That picture was a great reminder to the turn-around going on with this development.

halifaxboyns
Apr 30, 2014, 5:13 AM
None of the negative nellies mentioned what a blight Grafton St. was for 35 years on downtown. How can a vibrant Convention Centre be worse than the weed infested abandoned lot that sat beside the Midtown for so long? What would infuse more life to the street? I didn't hear any suggestions.

Blight on downtown gone with the negative nellies:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.646071,-63.57498,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNTeQjPkFOnFAEjDGQ85kPQ!2e0

I was tweeting a few folks during the public mtg. Someone mentioned what a great street Grafton was. I tweeted something along the lines of wtf? It was a dump and empty! Haha

counterfactual
Apr 30, 2014, 6:51 AM
None of the negative nellies mentioned what a blight Grafton St. was for 35 years on downtown. How can a vibrant Convention Centre be worse than the weed infested abandoned lot that sat beside the Midtown for so long? What would infuse more life to the street? I didn't hear any suggestions.

Blight on downtown gone with the negative nellies:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.646071,-63.57498,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNTeQjPkFOnFAEjDGQ85kPQ!2e0

YES. Exactly.

But that's just it. They're totally fine with a weed filled ugly lot! Because anything else, would mean change. Progress. Economic benefits. Even more [shudder] young people and families around. Why, that would ruin everything that is great about Halifax!

ILoveHalifax
Apr 30, 2014, 10:49 AM
Well it was a great street way back when it was lined with a row of low rental slums. Much like Jacob and Buckingham lest we forget.

Ziobrop
Apr 30, 2014, 2:44 PM
none of the negative nellies mentioned what a blight grafton st. Was for 35 years on downtown. How can a vibrant convention centre be worse than the weed infested abandoned lot that sat beside the midtown for so long? What would infuse more life to the street? I didn't hear any suggestions.

Blight on downtown gone with the negative nellies:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.646071,-63.57498,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snteqjpkfonfaejdgq85kpq!2e0

but the loss of green space!! Save the trees!!

teddifax
Apr 30, 2014, 4:13 PM
It is amazing how some people almost romanticize how things used to be, when in actuality they were never that way or at least in the final years. Grafton St. was in total disrepair and I agree about the pictures of the streets replaced with Scotia Square, they were in horrible shape.

Drybrain
Apr 30, 2014, 4:52 PM
and I agree about the pictures of the streets replaced with Scotia Square, they were in horrible shape.

So were a lot of other neighbourhoods in the central city--but they've been rehabbed and restored. That was the great mistake of the mid 20th-century: Instead of fixing slummy but functional neighbourhoods, we overlooked the potential for revitalization and instead destroyed them, replacing them with monolithic, deadening, anti-urban mega-projects like Scotia Scquare and the Cogswell. Which are ultimately proving to be much greater obstacles to urban success than some rundown buildings that could have been repaired.

It's still a pertinent point--just because something is run-down doesn't mean it's fit for the scrap-heap.

Anyway, in this case, I do agree that Grafton was pretty crap in recent years--there wasn't anything there to fix or restore. We can debate the merits of privatizing a public space, but the old Grafton is not a loss.

ns_kid
Apr 30, 2014, 5:04 PM
Surely even the "heritage" lobby must appreciate the irony that their last line of defence against the Nova Centre development is to protect the sanctity of Grafton Street for the private automobile. Grafton Street -- a four-block long road to nowhere -- will continue to be a thoroughfare; it will no longer be a windswept parking lot, which is effectively the only function it has served since the Metro Centre was built 40 years ago.

worldlyhaligonian
Apr 30, 2014, 5:59 PM
YES. Exactly.

But that's just it. They're totally fine with a weed filled ugly lot! Because anything else, would mean change. Progress. Economic benefits. Even more [shudder] young people and families around. Why, that would ruin everything that is great about Halifax!

To top it off... none of the complainers are actually spenders.

I would say 90 percent of people who spend money downtown are students. In fact, it probably drives the entire southend/downtown economy.

Keith P.
Apr 30, 2014, 8:44 PM
So were a lot of other neighbourhoods in the central city--but they've been rehabbed and restored. That was the great mistake of the mid 20th-century: Instead of fixing slummy but functional neighbourhoods, we overlooked the potential for revitalization and instead destroyed them, replacing them with monolithic, deadening, anti-urban mega-projects like Scotia Scquare and the Cogswell. Which are ultimately proving to be much greater obstacles to urban success than some rundown buildings that could have been repaired.

It's still a pertinent point--just because something is run-down doesn't mean it's fit for the scrap-heap.


These areas were ready for the scrap heap though. They were one of the worst rat-infested, run-down, rotten areas in the city. It wasn't like NYC where the bones of the slums were in many cases old brownstones that were spectacular when renovated. These things were cheaply built wood-frame boxes that were never very special to begin with and then allowed to deteriorate for decades. There was nothing there worth saving. It would be like restoring Mulgrave Park in another 50 years.

ILoveHalifax
Apr 30, 2014, 9:43 PM
They were one of the most run down rat infested slums in Canada at the time.

Drybrain
Apr 30, 2014, 11:15 PM
These areas were ready for the scrap heap though. They were one of the worst rat-infested, run-down, rotten areas in the city. It wasn't like NYC where the bones of the slums were in many cases old brownstones that were spectacular when renovated. These things were cheaply built wood-frame boxes that were never very special to begin with and then allowed to deteriorate for decades. There was nothing there worth saving. It would be like restoring Mulgrave Park in another 50 years.

Some, maybe, but seeing photos of what was knocked down for Cogswell, there was some brick and stone there too. And were even the wooden houses more rundown that they were around, say, Falkland and Creighton, at the time? Most of those have been well restored. (Maybe it was worse, I really don't know. I'm willing to believe there was a lot of junk in the area as well.)

counterfactual
May 1, 2014, 12:42 AM
I'm sure there was a mix, of bad and good. Cheap wood and some expensive brick. Squalor and something more than that.

Whatever was there, I'm sure, it is far better than the ugly post-apocalyptic nightmare currently inhabiting the Cogswell area.

I'd say the same for the ugly Barrington killing Scotia Square, but at least that still has some hope to be salvaged into something.

Colin May
May 1, 2014, 1:04 AM
These areas were ready for the scrap heap though. They were one of the worst rat-infested, run-down, rotten areas in the city. It wasn't like NYC where the bones of the slums were in many cases old brownstones that were spectacular when renovated. These things were cheaply built wood-frame boxes that were never very special to begin with and then allowed to deteriorate for decades. There was nothing there worth saving. It would be like restoring Mulgrave Park in another 50 years.

Buried in the Cogswell Interchange reports is an acknowledgement to those who fought against the Interchange (Ruffman was one of the many people) and it claims that the issue led to the formation of Heritage Trust and EAC. The same people were against demolishing what is now known as Historic Properties.
The Sixties were a period in N America and parts of Europe where the planners and politicians couldn't tear down older buildings fast enough and wanted to drive highways through city centres to allow traffic to move faster.
A well know journalist, Ian Nairn, wrote for The Observer on tplanning and livable towns/cities and he also appeared on BBC TV, the videos are available on youtube
I was often in Rotterdam in the sixties and they had restored the city centre from the destruction of WW2 with nice open plazas in shopping areas a short walk from the central railway station. Catered to pedestrians, not vehicles. Looking at the city on Google I cannot find those places, seem to have been replaced by taller buildings. Public Transit was easy because the staff all spoke English.

Ziobrop
May 1, 2014, 1:47 AM
I'm sure there was a mix, of bad and good. Cheap wood and some expensive brick. Squalor and something more than that.

Whatever was there, I'm sure, it is far better than the ugly post-apocalyptic nightmare currently inhabiting the Cogswell area.

I'd say the same for the ugly Barrington killing Scotia Square, but at least that still has some hope to be salvaged into something.

The 1957 report used to justify the clearance actully looks at the area in terms of Health and welfare and crime statistics as well as building condition. The cogswell/scotia square lands had some of the highest numbers of Relief cases as well as juvenile court appearances, and criminal code incidents per acre. As far as building condition goes, 30% or more were considered deficient based n standards outlined in a city ordinance.

there is a post coming on Builthalifax (http://blog.builthalifax.ca/) about this report.

counterfactual
May 1, 2014, 2:24 AM
The 1957 report used to justify the clearance actully looks at the area in terms of Health and welfare and crime statistics as well as building condition. The cogswell/scotia square lands had some of the highest numbers of Relief cases as well as juvenile court appearances, and criminal code incidents per acre. As far as building condition goes, 30% or more were considered deficient based n standards outlined in a city ordinance.

there is a post coming on Builthalifax (http://blog.builthalifax.ca/) about this report.

Fair enough, but I suspect that in the 1950s, some of those "city standards" probably had more than mere planning aims behind them; probably some stereotyping of the people living in various areas as well. "This is a crime riddled area; squalor. Let's bulldoze it".

Similar to what happened with Africville.

Anyways, will keep an eye out for the post! Looking forward to it.

Drybrain
May 1, 2014, 2:57 AM
There was (and I guess still is) a large number of policy makers who figure that eradicating poverty is as simple as eradicating the slum.

Anyway, what's done is done.

worldlyhaligonian
May 1, 2014, 7:03 AM
I was often in Rotterdam in the sixties and they had restored the city centre from the destruction of WW2 with nice open plazas in shopping areas a short walk from the central railway station. Catered to pedestrians, not vehicles. Looking at the city on Google I cannot find those places, seem to have been replaced by taller buildings. Public Transit was easy because the staff all spoke English.

Those places are still likely there, or in a different format but still as open and walkable. The Netherlands is one of the best examples of development because of the "polder model"... this is quite opposite to the battles between the public, government and private sector we have in Halifax... our development debate is more akin to a London or NY on a much smaller scale.

Alot of the nonsense that goes on in Halifax simply doesn't happen.

That being said, Rotterdam isn't the most fun city in the country ;)

worldlyhaligonian
May 1, 2014, 7:20 AM
So, back to NC. Is this a complete go ahead now?

Or are there other b/s meetings, hearings, public input, bureaucracy?

Ziobrop
May 1, 2014, 12:25 PM
Similar to what happened with Africville.



this is also the report that advocated for that.
When you look at the maps, the Long empty block of land bounded by North, Barrington , and the dockyard; Cogswell and Scotia Square lands, and Africville were all cleared as a result of this report.

Ziobrop
May 1, 2014, 12:29 PM
As of yesterday, the last bit of the bottom of the hole is covered.
Stay Up to date on progress at http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/


http://37.media.tumblr.com/0dead4f8df39986900023e5d2c68eb18/tumblr_n4w98pAufZ1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

Dmajackson
May 2, 2014, 1:21 AM
According to a poll by Corporate Research Associates Inc (on behalf of The Chronicle Herald) support for the convention centre is at it's highest level ever in HRM.

Poll: Most Back Convention Centre (TheChronicleHerald.ca) (http://m.thechronicleherald.ca//metro/1204604-poll-most-back-convention-centre?utm_source=email&utm_medium=business-insider&utm_campaign=business-insider)

fenwick16
May 2, 2014, 2:59 AM
As of yesterday, the last bit of the bottom of the hole is covered.
Stay Up to date on progress at http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/


http://37.media.tumblr.com/0dead4f8df39986900023e5d2c68eb18/tumblr_n4w98pAufZ1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg


It is interesting to compare the floor plans (http://www.halifaxconventioncentre.com/facility/) with your pictures.

This project will become particularly interesting over the next couple of months once Cherubini starts erecting 2,000 tons of steel girders for the exhibit hall and ballroom (source: allnovascotia.com, "Nova Centre Rising from Argyle Street Pit", by Amanda Fraser, Feb 13, 2014). When the allnovascotia.com story was written the expected start of steel erection was the end of May.

As a comparison the steel in the Casino Nova Scotia was 1,200 tons - http://cherubinigroup.com/wp-content/uploads/casino-nova-scotia-04.jpg (source: http://cherubinigroup.com/projects/casino-nova-scotia/) versus 2,000 tons for the Nova Centre.

counterfactual
May 2, 2014, 4:36 AM
According to a poll by Corporate Research Associates Inc (on behalf of The Chronicle Herald) support for the convention centre is at it's highest level ever in HRM.

Poll: Most Back Convention Centre (TheChronicleHerald.ca) (http://m.thechronicleherald.ca//metro/1204604-poll-most-back-convention-centre?utm_source=email&utm_medium=business-insider&utm_campaign=business-insider)

LOL. So much for the disinformation campaign being pushed out there.

I wonder how many more articles and letters to the editor about the "120,000 sq ft vs 290,000 sq ft" lie we'll continue seeing.

At this point, opponents must know they're playing a game of diminishing returns.

fenwick16
May 3, 2014, 3:23 AM
Looking through the following Design Review Committee Report - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/140429ca92.PDF - the Nova Centre approval process is now up to step 5. I hope that the province will fast-track step 5 so there won't be any delays in the Nova Centre construction schedule.


.
.
.

Process

It is important to note that Council is not considering the approval of a building at this time. Rather, it is considering amendments to the DHSMPS and DHLUB that will enable the new building to be approved through the substantive site plan approval process. This will involve a confirmation by the Development Officer that the finalized development proposal meets the amended requirements of the DHLUB and a determination by the Design Review Committee on whether it meets the Design Manual conditions. At the same time, with respect to Grafton Street, Council will need to consider amending the DHMPS to allow an exception to the policy that calls for blocks not to be consolidated for development. It also has to consider the official closure and sale of the street. Based on this, the sequential series of major steps that are involved with an approval are as follows:

1. Review and recommendation of proposed amendments to the planning documents by the Design Review Committee;
2. Regional Council first reading and set public hearing date;
3. Combined public hearing on the amendments to the planning documents and the administrative order for the closure of Grafton Street;
4. Regional Council decision on the adoption of amendments to the planning documents to address the new built-form of the Nova Centre and the exception to the policy that calls for blocks not to be consolidated for development;
5. Provincial review and approval of the amendments to the planning documents, if adopted by Council;
6. Contingent upon the amendments to the planning documents becoming effective, Regional Council approval of the closure of Grafton Street and the terms of its sale; and
7. Review of substantive site plan application by the Development Officer and the Design Review Committee.

.
.
.

counterfactual
May 3, 2014, 4:41 AM
Surette is back in the Herald again, ripping the Convention Centre.

Man that guy is useless.

fenwick16
May 3, 2014, 11:04 AM
Surette is back in the Herald again, ripping the Convention Centre.

Man that guy is useless.

Ralph Surette certainly is depressing. Even more depressing is that there is a small group of people who agree with him.

Here is a link to the most recent Surette rant - http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1204876-surette-sugarplum-visions-still-go-to-our-heads.

counterfactual
May 3, 2014, 7:05 PM
Ralph Surette certainly is depressing. Even more depressing is that there is a small group of people who agree with him.

Here is a link to the most recent Surette rant - http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1204876-surette-sugarplum-visions-still-go-to-our-heads.

Does he get paid for this crap? I hope he makes an in kind donation to the Herald every time they publish him. He's been useless for years.

KnoxfordGuy
May 3, 2014, 11:09 PM
So...what happens to the site if the building doesn't get approved?

someone123
May 3, 2014, 11:35 PM
So...what happens to the site if the building doesn't get approved?

Anti-convention centre activists keep trying to present every step in the process as a referendum on whether or not the project will proceed but they are misrepresenting the situation. Unfortunately, media outlets like the Herald also seem to be failing to present the issue in a clear way.

My understanding is that the funding is already in place, the critical requirements of the public component of the development (e.g. square footage of convention space) are already agreed upon, and this development already received more or less de facto approval years ago when it was built into the downtown plan. Under HRM by Design, there is no council vote on height with every proposal. That was one of the key reasons for moving away from the old development agreement process.

The most recent approval was for moving the convention space above Grafton vs. leaving it underground. It wasn't a vote on whether or not to proceed. The site plan approval will involve a review by the DRC and maybe some design tweaks but they are not really "gatekeepers" for the project. Ultimately it's the province that has the final say. The current work has been happening under provincial order before HRM approval was in place. This might not be ideal but the reality is that it's also not reasonable to give city councillors absolute veto power over provincial projects in the capital. Thankfully that's not how it works.

fenwick16
May 22, 2014, 9:43 PM
(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1209239-thiel-group-sues-province-over-nova-centre-planning-exemption )
Thiel Group sues province over Nova Centre planning exemption

The development of the new convention centre under construction in downtown Halifax has taken a new litigious twist.

The Thiel Family Group of Companies, owners of the Bank of Montreal Building, TD Centre and the downtown block buildings proposed to be redeveloped as 22 Commerce Square, has launched a Nova Scotia Supreme Court action alleging that the province broke its own laws by granting Argyle Developments Inc., owner and developer of Nova Centre, an exemption from municipal planning rules.
.
.
.


I wonder what the Thiel Group expects to gain from this court action? Polls indicate that the convention centre has majority support so if this action delays the opening of the convention centre then it will hurt the HRM and province.

I believe the Thiel Group will make more enemies than friends from this move. The Nova Centre hasn't exactly been a walk in the park versus the TD Centre and 22nd Commerce Square, which both seem to have had less red-tape than the Nova Centre.

halifaxboyns
May 22, 2014, 10:12 PM
(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1209239-thiel-group-sues-province-over-nova-centre-planning-exemption )


I wonder what the Thiel Group expects to gain from this court action? Polls indicate that the convention centre has majority support so if this action delays the opening of the convention centre then it will hurt the HRM and province.

I believe the Thiel Group will make more enemies than friends from this move. The Nova Centre hasn't exactly been a walk in the park versus the TD Centre and 22nd Commerce Square, which both seem to have had less red-tape than the Nova Centre.

Well the outcome is going to be pretty simple - every province is the key holder of planning matters - that stems from the original British North America act when the Crown (Federal Government) delegated those powers to the Provinces.

Thus the Province under the Municipal Government Act has the ability to designate projects or sites exempt from Municipal Planning Approval. I don't know the specifics of the NS rules - but in Alberta, the rules in the MGA are so broad that there isn't even a need to have a project of "Provincial significance" or anything like that.

I'd argue as a counter to their lawsuit that the Nova Centre is a project of Provincial Significance and thus with 3 levels of government committing money, the need to move the project along was decided at a Provincial level to be of economic importance.

These guys really aren't making friends in Nova Scotia now are they...I suspect they are a little annoyed also that their appeal to Regional Council was tossed. I had hoped that this sort of vindictive type of lawsuits were gone, but alas...

xanaxanax
May 22, 2014, 10:30 PM
(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1209239-thiel-group-sues-province-over-nova-centre-planning-exemption )


I wonder what the Thiel Group expects to gain from this court action? Polls indicate that the convention centre has majority support so if this action delays the opening of the convention centre then it will hurt the HRM and province.

I believe the Thiel Group will make more enemies than friends from this move. The Nova Centre hasn't exactly been a walk in the park versus the TD Centre and 22nd Commerce Square, which both seem to have had less red-tape than the Nova Centre.

I don't know what they have to gain either but I also don't think this has the ability to cause any delays/

Well the outcome is going to be pretty simple - every province is the key holder of planning matters - that stems from the original British North America act when the Crown (Federal Government) delegated those powers to the Provinces.

Thus the Province under the Municipal Government Act has the ability to designate projects or sites exempt from Municipal Planning Approval. I don't know the specifics of the NS rules - but in Alberta, the rules in the MGA are so broad that there isn't even a need to have a project of "Provincial significance" or anything like that.

I'd argue as a counter to their lawsuit that the Nova Centre is a project of Provincial Significance and thus with 3 levels of government committing money, the need to move the project along was decided at a Provincial level to be of economic importance.

These guys really aren't making friends in Nova Scotia now are they...I suspect they are a little annoyed also that their appeal to Regional Council was tossed. I had hoped that this sort of vindictive type of lawsuits were gone, but alas...

This should be common knowledge to them and if it isn't too their lawyer they should be fire them for pushing for this or agreeing to it. I really don't think they have any slim chance of coming out on top with this, its a very cut and dry clearly laid out that the Province has the authority in this mater.

halifaxboyns
May 22, 2014, 10:58 PM
This should be common knowledge to them and if it isn't too their lawyer they should be fire them for pushing for this or agreeing to it. I really don't think they have any slim chance of coming out on top with this, its a very cut and dry clearly laid out that the Province has the authority in this mater.

Just had a quick peak and here (http://novascotia.ca/dma/planning/nova-centre.asp) is the link to the statement of Provincial Interest for Nova Centre.

I think they are going to have a tough if not impossible time fighting this one.

someone123
May 22, 2014, 11:48 PM
Setting aside the fact that the province has the authority to circumvent HRM planning rules, there was also a tendering process for the convention centre. Thiel Group could have put in a bid too. Rank isn't getting random special treatment, they are the ones who won the bid to build a public development.

Ziobrop
May 23, 2014, 12:57 AM
Setting aside the fact that the province has the authority to circumvent HRM planning rules, there was also a tendering process for the convention centre. Thiel Group could have put in a bid too. Rank isn't getting random special treatment, they are the ones who won the bid to build a public development.

sort of. Rank owned the site, the site was designated for the convention Center, so rank was really the only eligible bidder and it was basically sole sourced.

did anyone notice that starfish opposed the extension of the development agreement for the zellers building, since they got the roy started on time.

i think its a thing developers have - if someone else gets an exception, and they didnt, they think its unfair.

besides didnt trilluim start work before they had all their approvals, and got a fine?

Ziobrop
May 23, 2014, 1:01 AM
Progress update Via http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com
after a year, we are basically in the same place, just going in the other direction now.

May 22/2013:
http://37.media.tumblr.com/9f63efdf04e8bcb1a2a810bb8192c987/tumblr_mu69dzrr9X1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

May 22/2014:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/44f4cdbf389878a5005c25f935a22b95/tumblr_n605ffDXWG1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

someone123
May 23, 2014, 1:14 AM
sort of. Rank owned the site, the site was designated for the convention Center, so rank was really the only eligible bidder and it was basically sole sourced.

There was a site selection process though, and had another developer offered a suitable site it would have been considered. Rank was not arbitrarily chosen.

Keith P.
May 23, 2014, 10:50 AM
There was a site selection process though, and had another developer offered a suitable site it would have been considered. Rank was not arbitrarily chosen.

If memory serves, Thiel in fact submitted a bid for the site that will become 22 Commerce Square. It lost.

beyeas
May 23, 2014, 11:19 AM
(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1209239-thiel-group-sues-province-over-nova-centre-planning-exemption )


I wonder what the Thiel Group expects to gain from this court action? Polls indicate that the convention centre has majority support so if this action delays the opening of the convention centre then it will hurt the HRM and province.

I believe the Thiel Group will make more enemies than friends from this move. The Nova Centre hasn't exactly been a walk in the park versus the TD Centre and 22nd Commerce Square, which both seem to have had less red-tape than the Nova Centre.

Yeah it never ceases to amaze me when developers decide to get litigious with each other, when the root of it is just being a poor loser. I can see what the short term gain might be, but in the long term you just open yourself up to a game of "what is good for the goose...". It probably puts other developers in a mood to oppose aspects of the Commerce Square proposal!

IanWatson
May 23, 2014, 3:49 PM
I wonder what the Thiel Group expects to gain from this court action? Polls indicate that the convention centre has majority support so if this action delays the opening of the convention centre then it will hurt the HRM and province.

Maybe that's what they want... to delay the convention centre. With all the new towers and upgrades to towers coming online commercial vacancy rates in the core are skyrocketing. Commerce Square is one of the least complete proposals, so perhaps they're worried they're going to end up "last to the show" and be stuck with office space they can't fill. A delay to the convention centre would be a delay to the (competing) office space associated with it.

fenwick16
May 24, 2014, 1:22 AM
About a month ago the following story was printed by the Chronicle Herald. It seemed to be misleading and overly negative:
Cautionary tale of a convention centre (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1203230-cautionary-tale-of-a-convention-centre)

Apparently the story was noticed by some people in Ottawa. The following story that mentions the Chronicle Herald story was written in the Ottawa Citizen. It is a more factual and less biased explanation of the Chronicle Herald story "facts".
Reevely: Figures showing new convention centre a success prove elusive (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Reevely+Figures+showing+convention+centre+success+prove+elusive/9788030/story.html)

This following story was printed in the Ottawa Citizen and mentions the Chronicle Herald discussion. It is somewhat biased since it is written by someone associated with the Ottawa convention centre but it gives concrete financial information that indicates that it has been a financial success:
Convention centre is an economic success (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Convention+centre+economic+success/9802890/story.html)
The Ottawa Citizen story was reprinted in the Chronicle Herald:
READER’S CORNER: Ottawa centre an unqualified success (http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1205647-reader-s-corner-ottawa-centre-an-unqualified-success). But most of the Chronicle Herald comments were negative :(

xanaxanax
May 24, 2014, 2:12 AM
Maybe that's what they want... to delay the convention centre. With all the new towers and upgrades to towers coming online commercial vacancy rates in the core are skyrocketing. Commerce Square is one of the least complete proposals, so perhaps they're worried they're going to end up "last to the show" and be stuck with office space they can't fill. A delay to the convention centre would be a delay to the (competing) office space associated with it.

I don't think this has the capability to cause any delays for the convention centre but if it does happen its just going to cause a counter lawsuit of the Thiel Group being sued

counterfactual
May 26, 2014, 7:28 AM
About a month ago the following story was printed by the Chronicle Herald. It seemed to be misleading and overly negative:
Cautionary tale of a convention centre (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1203230-cautionary-tale-of-a-convention-centre)

Apparently the story was noticed by some people in Ottawa. The following story that mentions the Chronicle Herald story was written in the Ottawa Citizen. It is a more factual and less biased explanation of the Chronicle Herald story "facts".
Reevely: Figures showing new convention centre a success prove elusive (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Reevely+Figures+showing+convention+centre+success+prove+elusive/9788030/story.html)

This following story was printed in the Ottawa Citizen and mentions the Chronicle Herald discussion. It is somewhat biased since it is written by someone associated with the Ottawa convention centre but it gives concrete financial information that indicates that it has been a financial success:
Convention centre is an economic success (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Convention+centre+economic+success/9802890/story.html)
The Ottawa Citizen story was reprinted in the Chronicle Herald:
READER’S CORNER: Ottawa centre an unqualified success (http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1205647-reader-s-corner-ottawa-centre-an-unqualified-success). But most of the Chronicle Herald comments were negative :(

I think I've finally come to the conclusion that most people in the CH comments are retired cranks, complaining about everything.

We should get ready for more of this, as the Boomers get older and crankier.

...naturally, healthcare, already over 1/2 of the NS budget (unjustifiably) will continue to suck more and more money from everything else to keep them happy.

fenwick16
May 31, 2014, 3:25 PM
It is great to be able to watch the Nova Centre progressing.

I did a screen capture from the Nova Scotia Webcams site and posted the corresponding floorplans of the levels currently under construction. Most of the space shown below is for exhibition space and meeting rooms of the convention centre. Part of the space along Argyle Street is retail space, which appears to be easily accessible from the convention centre.

Ceiling height for Exhibit Hall A is about 30 feet, and Exhibit Hall B is about 15 feet high (above Exhibit Hall B will be meeting rooms of about equal height - based on this link - http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk/documents/18708SiteandBuildingPlansandImagesoftheProposal.pdf).

(source: http://www.novascotiawebcams.com/halifax/nova-centre-construction.html)
http://images.novascotiawebcams.com/captured/novacentre_20140607-112250_iTV7KIc2WRJMhno9tvVSZU2BV4AXfDKIFhR1GUlf.jpg


(source: http://www.halifaxconventioncentre.com/facility/ , added dimensions are from this document - http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk/documents/18708SiteandBuildingPlansandImagesoftheProposal.pdf)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img834/6635/ahd8d.jpg

fenwick16
Jun 5, 2014, 3:50 AM
The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is appealing the HRM decision on April 29th to support changes to the Nova Centre design based on the Heritage Trust claim that the HRM Council decision was inconsistent with municipal planning strategy (as reported by allnovascotia.com). The appeal is to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

The Nova Centre project was overwhelmingly approved by HRM Council and supported by all three levels of provincial government. Elected officials represent the people, not the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

I hope that people will start a letter writing campaign to the Heritage Trust and Phil Pacey to let them know that they do not have the support of the majority and are not representing the people of Nova Scotia.

Here is the contact information for the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia - http://htns.ca/contact.html

I have sent the following email to the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

To representatives of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia,

I would like to state my disapproval with the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia and its decision to appeal the HRM Council decision of April 29th, 2014 which supported design changes to the Nova Centre. The Nova Centre has been overwhelmingly supported by elected municipal and provincial leaders who represent the voice of the majority. In spite of the Heritage Trust's claims to the contrary, I have no doubt that the new convention centre will draw people to the province and create jobs that will allow people to stay in Nova Scotia.

I think that the Heritage Trust should consider the municipal pride and support of the new Central Library when it considers public opinion regarding progress and new architecture. I can remember Halifax in the late 1960's and 1970's, and in my opinion, modern Halifax is a much more attractive city than it was 45 years ago. Halifax heritage buildings of the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's were built by developers who helped shape the city just as new architect continues to help define the city.

Most people seem to want both older heritage buildings and new interesting architecture; hopefully both the old and new buildings will be the heritage of future generations. In my opinion, the Heritage Trust is out of step with the opinions of the majority and by alienating the majority are denying itself the support that it needs to achieve meaningful heritage objectives.

worldlyhaligonian
Jun 5, 2014, 11:13 AM
The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is appealing the HRM decision on April 29th to support changes to the Nova Centre design based on the Heritage Trust claim that the HRM Council decision was inconsistent with municipal planning strategy (as reported by allnovascotia.com).


They are allowed to appeal this decision too? When does this end. Their input time is over.

counterfactual
Jun 5, 2014, 12:02 PM
The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is appealing the HRM decision on April 29th to support changes to the Nova Centre design based on the Heritage Trust claim that the HRM Council decision was inconsistent with municipal planning strategy (as reported by allnovascotia.com).

The Nova Centre project was overwhelmingly approved by HRM Council and supported by all three levels of provincial government. Elected officials represent the people, not the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

I hope that people will start a letter writing campaign to the Heritage Trust and Phil Pacey to let them know that they do not have the support of the majority and are not representing the people of Nova Scotia.

Here is the contact information for the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia - http://htns.ca/contact.html

I have sent the following email to the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

To representatives of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia,

I would like to state my disapproval with the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia and its decision to appeal the HRM Council decision of April 29th, 2014 which supported design changes to the Nova Centre. The Nova Centre has been overwhelmingly supported by elected municipal and provincial leaders who represent the voice of the majority. In spite of the Heritage Trust's claims to the contrary, I have no doubt that the new convention centre will draw people to the province and create jobs that will allow people to stay in Nova Scotia.

I think that the Heritage Trust should consider the municipal pride and support of the new Central Library when it considers public opinion regarding progress and new architecture. I can remember Halifax in the late 1960's and 1970's, and in my opinion, modern Halifax is a much more attractive city than it was 45 years ago. Halifax heritage buildings of the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's were built by developers who helped shape the city just as new architect continues to help define the city.

Most people seem to want both older heritage buildings and new interesting architecture; hopefully both the old and new buildings will be the heritage of future generations. In my opinion, the Heritage Trust is out of step with the opinions of the majority and by alienating the majority are denying itself the support that it needs to achieve meaningful heritage objectives.

Here, here! :tup:

teddifax
Jun 5, 2014, 2:57 PM
What is the mandate of this "Heritage Trust"? Is it to stop ALL development? I thought they were supposedly concerned with heritage buildings. Where are they here and therefore why are they even able or allowed to attempt to intervene on this development?

Drybrain
Jun 5, 2014, 4:24 PM
What is the mandate of this "Heritage Trust"? Is it to stop ALL development? I thought they were supposedly concerned with heritage buildings. Where are they here and therefore why are they even able or allowed to attempt to intervene on this development?

I think they long ago lost sight of their mandate and are now just obstructionists. They're not even effective at preserving historic buildings--they have little credibility with developers, politicians, or the public at large, and yet they're still the city's main heritage group. As a result they've totally ghettoized themselves and fostered resentment to heritage advocacy from people who see themselves as pro-development. They're useless, both for those of us who want to foster new development and those of us who want an effective heritage lobby. (And those of us who want both.)

Having said that, they are ALLOWED to express their opinion. Any citizen or citizen group can do so, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Haliguy
Jun 7, 2014, 9:24 PM
wrote the Heritage Trust stating my disapproval in their appeal and this was their response:


Thank you for your letters. They expressed similar concerns so I am replying to you at the same time. I would welcome your ideas about what, specifically, Heritage Trust should be doing to protect heritage buildings.


The Trust speaks for the protection, retention and re-use of our built heritage, which is a form of economic development. If we speak against proposals it is not because they are modern. The new library is a stand-alone building almost on its own stage and is, indeed, a landmark. However, that is rather different from the usual situation, where new development impacts the existing building stock. Sensitively designed, new buildings complement their heritage neighbours. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect is not “friendly” to what we wish to protect.

It is hardly“anti-progress” to speak in favour of upholding legal protections that have been built into planning law. While residents may take it for granted, the Citadel is a major attraction for visitors and a source of wealth to the city and province. We welcome far more tourists than convention goers and it makes sense to protect such an important tourist attraction. The Citadel’s siting was based on prominence and being able to see – and to be seen --for distances in several directions. Now, unless you are on a huge cruise liner, when sailing into the harbour you can barely see the Citadel. The view towards the harbour has been equally compromised. Progress is change for the better, but some change leads to a poorer environment, especially for heritage; it is not “progress”. That is why we focus on ensuring that the protection we have in law is maintained.

It is all too easy to argue for “special cases” that should override the Plan. The YMCA proposal is an example. The apparent pressing need for more sports/gym facilities on the Peninsula -- and perhaps a desire to help out the good people at the Y -- was used to argue for extra height for a new development at Sackville and South Park. And yet I read -- with some surprise -- in yesterday’s paper that “more gym space is not required on the Halifax peninsula despite the recent shuttering of multiple gyms, a municipal staff report says.” The CBC building is a solid, landmark building with public value (and a lot of embodied energy). The argument for sending it to the landfill seems rather weak right now. (You might appreciate architect Sydney Dumaresq’s article at http://htns.ca/pdf_Griffin/Vol35.3-Sep10.pdf , p. 3.)

The process, under which permission was granted to move ahead with a different design for the Nova Centre, and the overriding of some planning rules concern The Trust, not the visual qualities of a ”modern” building. While others may not feel they can speak out about it, silence does not necessarily mean agreement with what happened. As to any economic arguments for or against the Nova Centre, I leave them to people like Allan Robertson (Save the View) and the Auditor General of NS, who know far more than most of us about evaluating and analyzing data. I don’t believe that either one puts any faith in the projections of economic benefits accruing from the Centre.

Regards,

Linda Forbes

fenwick16
Jun 8, 2014, 12:41 AM
wrote the Heritage Trust stating my disapproval in their appeal and this was their response:


Thank you for your letters. They expressed similar concerns so I am replying to you at the same time. I would welcome your ideas about what, specifically, Heritage Trust should be doing to protect heritage buildings.


The Trust speaks for the protection, retention and re-use of our built heritage, which is a form of economic development. If we speak against proposals it is not because they are modern. The new library is a stand-alone building almost on its own stage and is, indeed, a landmark. However, that is rather different from the usual situation, where new development impacts the existing building stock. Sensitively designed, new buildings complement their heritage neighbours. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect is not “friendly” to what we wish to protect.

It is hardly“anti-progress” to speak in favour of upholding legal protections that have been built into planning law. While residents may take it for granted, the Citadel is a major attraction for visitors and a source of wealth to the city and province. We welcome far more tourists than convention goers and it makes sense to protect such an important tourist attraction. The Citadel’s siting was based on prominence and being able to see – and to be seen --for distances in several directions. Now, unless you are on a huge cruise liner, when sailing into the harbour you can barely see the Citadel. The view towards the harbour has been equally compromised. Progress is change for the better, but some change leads to a poorer environment, especially for heritage; it is not “progress”. That is why we focus on ensuring that the protection we have in law is maintained.

It is all too easy to argue for “special cases” that should override the Plan. The YMCA proposal is an example. The apparent pressing need for more sports/gym facilities on the Peninsula -- and perhaps a desire to help out the good people at the Y -- was used to argue for extra height for a new development at Sackville and South Park. And yet I read -- with some surprise -- in yesterday’s paper that “more gym space is not required on the Halifax peninsula despite the recent shuttering of multiple gyms, a municipal staff report says.” The CBC building is a solid, landmark building with public value (and a lot of embodied energy). The argument for sending it to the landfill seems rather weak right now. (You might appreciate architect Sydney Dumaresq’s article at http://htns.ca/pdf_Griffin/Vol35.3-Sep10.pdf , p. 3.)

The process, under which permission was granted to move ahead with a different design for the Nova Centre, and the overriding of some planning rules concern The Trust, not the visual qualities of a ”modern” building. While others may not feel they can speak out about it, silence does not necessarily mean agreement with what happened. As to any economic arguments for or against the Nova Centre, I leave them to people like Allan Robertson (Save the View) and the Auditor General of NS, who know far more than most of us about evaluating and analyzing data. I don’t believe that either one puts any faith in the projections of economic benefits accruing from the Centre.

Regards,

Linda Forbes

Thank you for posting her response. It is good to see that they received letters (and emails) regarding their stand against the convention centre.

I have many issues with her response:

1) Why would a convention centre, that will most certainly bring additional visitors to the province, result in fewer visitors to the Citadel? The constricted viewpoint that people visit the Citadel to see the Harbour astounds me. Why would visitors not want to look down and see the entire city? I feel that the new convention centre with its larger capacity for bigger conventions will increase the number of visitors to the Citadel.
2) The Heritage Trust claims that rules were broken and people need to speak out about it annoys me. Why can't they understand that rules are made through elected officials and can be changed through elected officials? In any case, the convention centre with it specified building heights are written into HRM by Design, so no height rules are being broken.
3) It seems as though the Heritage Trust feels that most people oppose the convention centre but are remaining silent. Why can't they understand that most people like modern architecture and are in favour of the convention centre?
4) The Auditor General's claim that only one study was conducted regarding the convention centre indicated his lack of knowledge, and therefore his opinion just showed his ignorance in spite of having the appointed position of Auditor General.

Ziobrop
Jun 8, 2014, 2:04 AM
I will have to double check, but even with the bonus height the nova center complies with the view planes in the bylaw.

The y project I believe violates the view plane so argue on that.

Finally I could make the argument that the citadel was built to defend against a land attack from the non harbour side so the important views to preserve are the other way, where no view planes exist iirc.

Dmajackson
Jun 8, 2014, 4:01 AM
I will have to double check, but even with the bonus height the nova center complies with the view planes in the bylaw.

The y project I believe violates the view plane so argue on that.

Finally I could make the argument that the citadel was built to defend against a land attack from the non harbour side so the important views to preserve are the other way, where no view planes exist iirc.

Yes, No, and No.

Nova Centre meets the viewplanes bylaw. The George's Island (?) viewplane is the reason there is only three towers and of them is shaped like a triangle.

The New Halifax YMCA does not violate the viewplanes bylaw. There is a viewplane east of the site (passes over City Centre Atlantic). The approved amendment for that project was regarding the height limits adjacent Citadel Hill.

The Citadel was mainly built to protect Halifax from a sea-based attack. The city was built almost exclusively as a means for the British to have a stronghold from which they could launch their attack of Louisbourg and eventually the rest of New France. If you look carefully at Citadel Hill you'll notice most of the cannon holes are located on the harbour side. Eventually fortifications were built further down the harbour on Georges, McNabs and in Point Pleasant Park making Citadel Hill unlikely to be attacked. Land based attacks were deterred by the town wall (with guard posts), and Fort Sackville.

Ziobrop
Jun 9, 2014, 12:52 PM
Yes, No, and No.

Nova Centre meets the viewplanes bylaw. The George's Island (?) viewplane is the reason there is only three towers and of them is shaped like a triangle.


Agreed.


The New Halifax YMCA does not violate the viewplanes bylaw. There is a viewplane east of the site (passes over City Centre Atlantic). The approved amendment for that project was regarding the height limits adjacent Citadel Hill.


I was unsure of this. I knew there was some density bonusing used to grant height, but i was unsure of the viewplanes.


The Citadel was mainly built to protect Halifax from a sea-based attack. The city was built almost exclusively as a means for the British to have a stronghold from which they could launch their attack of Louisbourg and eventually the rest of New France. If you look carefully at Citadel Hill you'll notice most of the cannon holes are located on the harbour side. Eventually fortifications were built further down the harbour on Georges, McNabs and in Point Pleasant Park making Citadel Hill unlikely to be attacked. Land based attacks were deterred by the town wall (with guard posts), and Fort Sackville.

Parks Canada Disagrees (from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/ns/halifax/natcul/natcul1.aspx )
Halifax Citadel National Historic Site of Canada
The fourth fort on Citadel Hill was completed in 1856 and protected Halifax from a possible landward attack.

Haliguy
Jun 9, 2014, 5:32 PM
Thank you for posting her response. It is good to see that they received letters (and emails) regarding their stand against the convention centre.

I have many issues with her response:

1) Why would a convention centre, that will most certainly bring additional visitors to the province, result in fewer visitors to the Citadel? The constricted viewpoint that people visit the Citadel to see the Harbour astounds me. Why would visitors not want to look down and see the entire city? I feel that the new convention centre with its larger capacity for bigger conventions will increase the number of visitors to the Citadel.
2) The Heritage Trust claims that rules were broken and people need to speak out about it annoys me. Why can't they understand that rules are made through elected officials and can be changed through elected officials? In any case, the convention centre with it specified building heights are written into HRM by Design, so no height rules are being broken.
3) It seems as though the Heritage Trust feels that most people oppose the convention centre but are remaining silent. Why can't they understand that most people like modern architecture and are in favour of the convention centre?
4) The Auditor General's claim that only one study was conducted regarding the convention centre indicated his lack of knowledge, and therefore his opinion just showed his ignorance in spite of having the appointed position of Auditor General.


No problem...I agree all of what you said and pretty much said the all the same things in repsonse to thier letter.

fenwick16
Jun 9, 2014, 11:43 PM
There was a story in the Chronicle Herald regarding the Heritage Trust appeal. There is also some news on the progress of the Nova Centre approvals (below). The Nova Centre presentation for the Design Review Meeting on Thursday, June 12th is given at this link - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/140612DRCagenda.php

(source: http://www.herald.ns.ca/business/1213521-taylor-heritage-trust-challenges-two-halifax-projects )
TAYLOR: Heritage Trust challenges two Halifax projects
ROGER TAYLOR BUSINESS COLUMNIST
Published June 9, 2014 - 7:52pm
Last Updated June 9, 2014 - 8:02pm
.
.
.
It just so happens that Argyle Developments is making its final presentation to the design review committee later this week.

If the development company receives approval from that committee, above-ground construction of Nova Centre will proceed.

The aim is to have the convention centre completed in time to accept events by early 2016.

Argyle, which is a subsidiary of Halifax developer Rank Inc., was given special permission from the provincial government to proceed with below-ground construction before all aspects of the approval process were completed for the project.

That was also done to allow tight deadlines for the convention centre to be met.

It is not certain whether the judicial review will delay construction of the Nova Centre, which was already delayed for more than a year due to public input that led to major changes in the configuration of the one-million-square-foot project.
.
.
.

ns_kid
Jun 10, 2014, 1:42 PM
Thanks, fenwick. Taylor's piece makes for interesting reading. He goes on to quote Wolfgang Thiel, who himself is being challenged by the good folks at the Anti-Development -- er -- Heritage Trust over his 22nd Commerce Square development, as saying:

"(I’m) getting kind of tired getting lawyers all the time to defend yourself while you’re trying to do something good for the city. (...) Why should you defend yourself in front of court after you get approval for a project that should bring Halifax downtown, the city’s core, back to life?”

This was apparently offered without irony since he is, at the same time, challenging fellow developer Joe Ramia over the Nova Centre project.

Between battling the city, obstructionist self-interest groups, and each other, it must take a special breed of masochist to work as a developer in this city.

Haligonian88
Jun 10, 2014, 10:45 PM
This was apparently offered without irony since he is, at the same time, challenging fellow developer Joe Ramia over the Nova Centre project.

Between battling the city, obstructionist self-interest groups, and each other, it must take a special breed of masochist to work as a developer in this city.

I believe Wolfgang Thiel is challenging the province for breaking its own laws with regards to fast tracking the Nova Centre, not Joe Ramia. I recall Thiel saying he supports the Nova Centre, just not the special treatment. Regardless, it is a challenge to be a developer in this city, no doubt.

Waye Mason
Jun 11, 2014, 1:21 AM
Parks Canada Disagrees (from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/ns/halifax/natcul/natcul1.aspx )
Halifax Citadel National Historic Site of Canada
The fourth fort on Citadel Hill was completed in 1856 and protected Halifax from a possible landward attack.

The Common was cleared to provide clear fields of fire in the event the Americans landed troops and marched on Halifax from landward. That is why there was ALSO a string of forts up the peninsula (Fort Needham) and on the old Windsor road leading to Bedford (the Blockhouse).

halifaxboyns
Jun 11, 2014, 3:00 PM
I believe Wolfgang Thiel is challenging the province for breaking its own laws with regards to fast tracking the Nova Centre, not Joe Ramia. I recall Thiel saying he supports the Nova Centre, just not the special treatment. Regardless, it is a challenge to be a developer in this city, no doubt.

That gets back to the statement of Provincial Interest and the way it is written is pretty solid. I don't think he'll have much solid ground to stand on.

Dmajackson
Jun 13, 2014, 2:58 AM
The project was given the final green light of approval tonight by the Design Review Committee. Assuming there are no appeals the $1 million building permit can be issued in two weeks time and construction can ramp back up. It remains to be seen if the two current court appeals will have any effect on construction. My hunch says this project will be appealed by the same group that attempted to halt 22nd Commerce Square.

fenwick16
Jun 13, 2014, 11:24 PM
There are more details about the Design Review Committee's approval and the project schedule in this article.

(source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1214488-halifax-city-hall-committee-oks-final-nova-centre-site-plan?from=most_read&most_read=1214488)
Halifax city hall committee OKs final Nova Centre site plan
BRETT BUNDALE CITY HALL REPORTER
Published June 13, 2014 - 6:29am

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97330827Z.120140613062914000G1M5QE5R.11.jpg

Argyle Developments Ltd. has been given the green light to proceed with the $500-million Nova Centre development in downtown Halifax.

A city hall committee unanimously approved the development’s final site plan Thursday night with conditions.

Joe Ramia, the head of Rank Inc. and subsidiary Argyle Developments, now plans to obtain building permits to begin above-ground construction.

“It’s the last step in this process and we’re feeling very good about having a unanimous approval from the design review committee,” he said in an interview. “That is the last hurdle that we have to cross.”

The public still has 14 days to appeal the project. Any appeals would go before council, which would have 60 days to make a decision.

But barring any appeals, Ramia said above-ground construction could start in less than a month.
.
.
.



Although I don't want to beat a dead horse, the Heritage Trust and Phil Pacey showed their intentions in the following story. If the Heritage Trust managed to win a court ruling and have the design changes to the Nova Centre reversed then the entire existing construction would have to be demolished and the site would have to be excavated by another 30 feet so the Ballroom could go under Grafton Street. It seems odd that the Heritage Trust now wants the previous design which they didn't support either. The Heritage Trust is digging deep into their bag of tricks once again.

(source: http://www.ns.dailybusinessbuzz.ca/Provincial-News/2014-06-13/article-3762042/NS%3A-Heritage-Trust-of-Nova-Scotia-goes-to-court-to-challenge-Nova-Centre-design/1)
NS: Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia goes to court to challenge Nova Centre design
By Braedon Clark, For MetroPublished on June 13, 2014
.
.
The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has filed a request for judicial review with the province’s Supreme Court, seeking to quash the April 29 regional council vote that authorized three changes to the convention centre’s design: the size and shape of the towers, the decision to move the ballroom above ground and the closure of part of Grafton Street.
.
.
Heritage Trust’s Phil Pacey said lawyers won’t meet on the issue until late June or early July, but he was confident that a judge would agree with his group’s position.

“I’m optimistic,” Pacey said. “We have strong ground to stand on.”

Pacey cited several issues that he objected to with the convention centre’s design, chief among them a lack of realism in how the Nova Centre will interact with the surrounding area.

“All of the mock-ups of the building are from the perspective of some area floating in space,” he said. “We haven’t seen how it will compare to the rest of the area on a proper scale."

The Heritage Trust is not seeking to stop the project completely through an injunction, just to reverse the changes that arose from the April 29 meeting.
.
.
.

ILoveHalifax
Jun 14, 2014, 12:16 AM
Can we not file a suit to have Phil Pacey declared insane and committed to a mental institution?
There is a little place east of Halifax called Sherbrooke Village where he should be very happy; It is exactly as he would like to see Halifax.

Keith P.
Jun 14, 2014, 3:29 PM
Can we not file a suit to have Phil Pacey declared insane and committed to a mental institution?


Maybe not that, but I hope I see the day where the judge in one of these hearings declares him and the HT guilty of frivolous litigation simply for obstruction, and hits them with all sorts of costs that will seriously impair their ability to do so in the future.

worldlyhaligonian
Jun 14, 2014, 3:43 PM
“All of the mock-ups of the building are from the perspective of some area floating in space,” he said. “We haven’t seen how it will compare to the rest of the area on a proper scale."

... Hmm... what organization or affiliated organization would present inaccurate mockups themselves?

These guys are literally making things up at this point. This exercise has eliminated any credibility they had. We'll see many more 18-22 story buildings.

teddifax
Jun 14, 2014, 5:57 PM
I was in on the HT site and if you look at their "Mandate", although not described as that. This is the description they give for their existence...Since 1959, the Trust has fought to save some of the most architecturally and historically significant structures in the province. These include the stone warehouses on the Halifax waterfront which are now Historic Properties, the Lent House in Freeport, the Carleton Hotel in Halifax, and numerous others.

The Trust has also promoted the need for heritage preservation legislation in Nova Scotia, and provides input on legislative policy at the municipal and provincial levels. Through research reports, the Trust has facilitated heritage designation of more than 100 buildings throughout the province.

I can appreciate the fact that they have save historic buildings, BUT, how does this in any which way, shape or form, justify them attacking Nova Centre. It is no where near anything described in their description!

Drybrain
Jun 14, 2014, 7:52 PM
I was in on the HT site and if you look at their "Mandate", although not described as that. This is the description they give for their existence...Since 1959, the Trust has fought to save some of the most architecturally and historically significant structures in the province. These include the stone warehouses on the Halifax waterfront which are now Historic Properties, the Lent House in Freeport, the Carleton Hotel in Halifax, and numerous others.

The Trust has also promoted the need for heritage preservation legislation in Nova Scotia, and provides input on legislative policy at the municipal and provincial levels. Through research reports, the Trust has facilitated heritage designation of more than 100 buildings throughout the province.

I can appreciate the fact that they have save historic buildings, BUT, how does this in any which way, shape or form, justify them attacking Nova Centre. It is no where near anything described in their description!

Doesn't seem as if they've really lived up to that mandate for decades. I can't speak to their lobbying efforts, etc, but it doesn't seem they spend much time working toward better legislation, and haven't achieved anything tangible (i.e., buildings they've actually saved) in years. It's not just that they're obstructionist; they're ineffective even when compared against their own mandate.

halifaxboyns
Jun 15, 2014, 5:31 AM
Maybe not that, but I hope I see the day where the judge in one of these hearings declares him and the HT guilty of frivolous litigation simply for obstruction, and hits them with all sorts of costs that will seriously impair their ability to do so in the future.

This is where you and I both agree completely on one thing - I am actually hoping that at some point they cross the line on a bunch of fronts and end up with multiple lawsuits on their hands. Regional Council meetings are recorded - so what better evidence...

I think Pacey's optimism is misplaced. If there is one thing the courts have had a glaring tendency to do is stay out of Municipal affairs, unless it can be demonstrated that the City in question (HRM) made a huge error in law. The fact is, between the Provincial Statement of Interest and the fact that the Municipality is the designated government that is able to make a decision on changing the plan - then I don't see where they have any potential ability to make their case.

But what this does remind us - when considering these sort of 'special buildings' - we need not put the design of the building into the plan. Because if we do - then you expose yourself to further risk. Better to have a policy and leave it at that; so that any design changes can be dealt with through the application process and not requiring a public hearing!

Ziobrop
Jun 24, 2014, 6:36 PM
Just saw a tweet that Ramia has launched a suit against Heritage Trust and it's board for trying to stall construction of Nova Centre

mcmcclassic
Jun 24, 2014, 6:53 PM
Just saw a tweet that Ramia has launched a suit against Heritage Trust and it's board for trying to stall construction of Nova Centre

Serves them right for being such a nuisance in the whole process. Maybe going forward the HT can actually stick to preserving the legit heritage properties we have and educate the public on our past.

portapetey
Jun 24, 2014, 8:20 PM
Just saw a tweet that Ramia has launched a suit against Heritage Trust and it's board for trying to stall construction of Nova Centre


http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1218047-nova-centre-developer-suing-heritage-trust-of-nova-scotia


No commenting enabled on the story. But I voted my 5 stars!

q12
Jun 24, 2014, 8:21 PM
Just saw a tweet that Ramia has launched a suit against Heritage Trust and it's board for trying to stall construction of Nova Centre

This may be the greatest day in the History of Halifax.

DigitalNinja
Jun 24, 2014, 11:01 PM
Finally, someone has the balls to stand up to these people. I think Ramia worded his statement quite well and hits the nail on the head with the Heritage trust going out of bounds on their "mandate".

ILoveHalifax
Jun 24, 2014, 11:34 PM
Go Joe ! :yes:

counterfactual
Jun 25, 2014, 1:06 AM
Doubt he'll be successful.

But it may be an opportunity to start a real discussion about heritage preservation in this city, and what a terrible job HT does.

They prefer to sue and block rather than do anything of value for heritage preservation...

fenwick16
Jun 25, 2014, 2:38 AM
Finally someone is taking action against these obstructionists. I hope the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia can be shut down and a rational heritage group formed in its place.

Yea to Joe Ramia.

ns_kid
Jun 25, 2014, 3:09 PM
I join the rest of you in saying, "Bravo Mr. Ramia."

I doubt if he believes he will actually win this in court, but he is clearly making a point, giving the HT a taste of their own medicine. This bunch has long ago lost any credibility as an effective protector of heritage, preferring instead to delay, obstruct and agitate against large-scale development, asserting that all such development is somehow contrary to our heritage.

This is bizarre, of course. Since its founding, Halifax has been an industrial city, with no shortage of developments that were large, gritty and imposing in their day. The Halifax the HT seeks to "preserve" is a myth, an aritficial place of red brick and gold leaf that never existed in fact.

The list of truly historic structures lost in Nova Scotia over the past two decades is long and tragic and the HT has done little to stem that tide. Yet they seem to have endless resources to vex developers and municipal officials in the protection of vacant lots.

If the HT board truly had integrity they would change their name and their charter to reflect their actual goals. And citizens who truly care about preservation would form a new group, one like New York's Landmarks Conservancy, dedicated to, in the words of the NYLC's mission statement, "preserving, revitalizing, and reusing [our] architecturally significant buildings." The NYLC certainly stands up to developers and city officials, but to protect actual historic structures; even more important, helping to find economically viable new uses for those buildings.

halifaxboyns
Jun 25, 2014, 3:38 PM
As the song says - "Oh happy day!".
Was waiting for this...the HT's comments in the article are certainly interesting. I don't see how having standing at the UARB has any relevance to the matter; but that will be up to them to defend.

But certainly the comment that they've used innuendo and other such tactics is pretty accurate (at least to me). Every public hearing is recorded - so they can introduce their comments as evidence. Hopefully this makes them realize that their comments (factual based or as is more the case non-fact based) are on the record and there are ramifications to it.

I hope they sweat more than I did when I got hit with a SLAP lawsuit when I was working up north. I just got the paperwork back that the person who filed it has withdrawn it...but now I've hired the lawyer to hit him with one for slander. :)

worldlyhaligonian
Jun 25, 2014, 4:13 PM
They should make the HT members financially responsible for their abuse of the system.

Ziobrop
Jun 25, 2014, 4:15 PM
I have noticed recently the arrival of what appears to be A Putzmister tower placing system - basically a large tower concrete pump arm.

I Noticed tower parts today, and the arm was on a truck on the 17th.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4b6d1a58235a0525f04acac35cf52fe6/tumblr_n7qdu0tk301sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

http://37.media.tumblr.com/54916558774a429e2fe2f9207f1f9037/tumblr_n7boycEGWk1sjmgsso1_1280.jpg

Photos from http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/

I believe most highrises to date have used buckets on the tower crane for pouring columns and slabs.