[Halifax] The Roy Halifax | 71 m | 22 fl | Completed

[YOWetal]

The design calls for complete demolition of this building and a cheap knockoff rebuilt like O'Carrol's and the Roy Building. This is much worse because the building is so much a part of Halifax and you will not get that level of sandstone and detail again, not to mention the replacement would be cheap concrete panels called sandstone like material. The plan calls for 8-9 floors so the existing structure could not accommodate the extra floors so the only plan is to demolish it. This is what happens when HRM doesn't care about quality heritage buildings.

Or when the Heritage folks spend their time and money fighting for years (and basically kill) a project that would replace a parking lot.

[Takeo]

The design calls for complete demolition of this building and a cheap knockoff rebuilt like O'Carrol's and the Roy Building. This is much worse because the building is so much a part of Halifax and you will not get that level of sandstone and detail again, not to mention the replacement would be cheap concrete panels called sandstone like material. The plan calls for 8-9 floors so the existing structure could not accommodate the extra floors so the only plan is to demolish it. This is what happens when HRM doesn't care about quality heritage buildings.

Unbelievable. That's downright criminal. How could they demo that building? That's horrible. I don't believe that it's not possible to save. They could save the facade at least. It you ask me... this is a nicer building that the historic building at the "Waterside" site.

[Doggard]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but;
Fighting against the demolition of the BMO building could be a good move for the Halifax Development Coalition as far as getting some media attention goes... Assuming that this development is actually on the table.

[someone123]

Seems like it would be good to wait until the actual public hearings and details are released before getting too worked up over this. It seems unlikely that the developer would opt not to preserve the stone facade. Isn't this the same developer that preserved the wooden facade of that apartment building on Summer Street?

[sdm]

Seems like it would be good to wait until the actual public hearings and details are released before getting too worked up over this. It seems unlikely that the developer would opt not to preserve the stone facade. Isn't this the same developer that preserved the wooden facade of that apartment building on Summer Street?

Yes same developer.

[JET]

When you say "saved the facade on summer st"; all they were required to do and all they did was save the thickness of 1" board on the face of the building. Everything on the front was gone, and everything behind was gone. It was really bizarre to see. However, the building as it now stands is a remarkable duplication of how the original looked. I'm not recommending only saving facades, since most of the heritage is lost. A good example of a saved facade is granville mall, but then all the stone work was saved.
I like the BMO building, there should be a way to save that corner and add on something nice behind. JET

[sdm]

When you say "saved the facade on summer st"; all they were required to do and all they did was save the thickness of 1" board on the face of the building. Everything on the front was gone, and everything behind was gone. It was really bizarre to see. However, the building as it now stands is a remarkable duplication of how the original looked. I'm not recommending only saving facades, since most of the heritage is lost. A good example of a saved facade is granville mall, but then all the stone work was saved.
I like the BMO building, there should be a way to save that corner and add on something nice behind. JET

Just so we are clear, granville mall was tore down and rebuilt right?

i believe founders square is the best example of facade retenion with addition on top in the city.

[hfx_chris]

Correct, the only original part of Granville mall that I'm aware of are the facades. I can assure you the Delta wasn't original :)

[dartmouthian]

I'm pretty sure that the other side of granville mall is original.

[hfx_chris]

The side that everybody always forgets about? I dunno. Is that even called Granville Mall? I thought the signs above the doors to the mall called it something different.

[ZET]

"Granville Mall .. Destroyed by fire in 1859, the buildings on this block at the end of Granville Street were rebuilt in the Italianate style.
When the Delta Barrington Hotel was built on the west side of the plaza, the original building facades were disassembled and then carefully restored in order to preserve the historical significance of this area."

Granville mall incorporates the pedestrian mall/plaza and the buildings on either side. There is reference to Granville mall having 17 historic buildings.

The hotel facade though reconstructed was done really well, and the stone work is the original material. The garden crest apartment has really nothing of the original except some 1" thick sheathing boards. ZET

[alps]

Heres how it goes - can you tell I'm having a bit too much fun with bird's eye view? :)

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w81/Hurland/f8688b13.jpg

[eastcoastal]

The side that everybody always forgets about? I dunno. Is that even called Granville Mall? I thought the signs above the doors to the mall called it something different.

Granville Mall is the street, not the shops.

Soooo the Roy Building? I Have to say, I hope it never gets built in its most current incarnation. It's too bloody high (never mind the aching aesthetic problems). Sure, the developer will say that they need the additional height to pay for the restoration of the historic parts, but if they were not allowed to build that high (and they wouldn't be if they weren't grandfathered in to pre-HRMbyDesign rules), then they would be forced to develop in a way that was considerate to the city first, rather than their pocket books. I would rather see the Roy Building torn down, with something new and modern and WELL SCALED AND WELL CONSIDERED built in its place, than see this awkward abortion of urban design.

To be clear though, I'd rather see the existing maintained, with a FEW additional floors on top.

[ZET]

alps, very nice. A picture does say a thousand words. ZET

[hfx_chris]

Granville Mall is the street, not the shops.
Not quite. The shops, at least on the west side, are called The Shops of Granville Mall... or something to that effect.

[Dmajackson]

The HRM Information page has been updated; Case 01172 (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01172Details.html)

New renderings; Case 01172 Renderings (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/01172Renderings.pdf)

And this is moving along to HAC and District 12 PAC recommendations next week.

[Keith P.]

I like it, though the recreation of the original facade on Barrington looks pretty uninspired.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Are they planning to use the original brick? If so, it should be fine.

[spaustin]

I would feel so much better about this one if they were going to retain the Barrington Street facade. Hopefully they'll at least recycle the brick to avoid that awful faux heritage look. On the plus side, in the latest renderings I really like how they've changed the concept on the Granville side. I was never against the wavy glass, but I thought that carrying the Roy back, replicating it and streatching it beyond what's there today was silly. I like the more modern brick treatment and lines on the back.

[fenwick16]

I like everything about this development. The new look and the incorporation of the original structure. :tup: I have really been hoping that this one would go ahead.

[someone123]

The PDF with the elevations describes the materials they'll use. It calls for partly new brick on the Barrington side, with precast concrete lintels above the windows and cut stone for lower parts of the facade. Looks like they're going to recreate period storefronts with awnings. They're also reducing the reconstruction to 5 storeys.

Truth be told I am not the greatest fan of the current Roy Building facade to begin with. It was built in stages out of just brick and is very messy looking. It's large but is noticeably lower in quality than a bunch of other buildings on Barrington and over the years has deteriorated. On the other end of that block, for example, the Johnston Building is obviously much nicer. For this reason I think the Roy Building is the perfect candidate for this sort of redevelopment. If it's done according to these plans Barrington will just be better off. I hope they can move forward with this quickly.

[spaustin]

I like everything about this development. The new look and the incorporation of the original structure. :tup: I have really been hoping that this one would go ahead.

The original structure isn't being incorporated. It is being demolished and replaced with a replica. Depending on the care taken, it could either be another plus like Granville Mall or just another piece of terrible faux history.

[fenwick16]

The original structure isn't being incorporated. It is being demolished and replaced with a replica. Depending on the care taken, it could either be another plus like Granville Mall or just another piece of terrible faux history.
I really like structures that combine old and new even if it is just a recreation; at least it will help make the structure fit into the streetscape since it was already that general shape before. It isn't being torn down and replaced with a CIBC type building (I really dislike that one, I wish Templeton Properties could do a new Fenwick-type recreation of it).

Here's hoping for a Granville Mall type result.

[someone123]

The biggest problem with CIBC is the street-level design, which is definitely better in this proposal. I guess the brick could be ugly but the fenestration is also nicer (discrete windows at moderate intervals instead of giant strips) I think and the ugly brown glass has gone out of style since the 80s, thankfully.

This project looks slightly nicer than the Waterford, which is not quite on par with an original masonry building but looks pretty good.

[ScovaNotian]

Does anyone still have the previous renderings? The tower has certainly improved, but I think I liked the Granville side of the lower floors better before.

[fenwick16]

The PDF with the elevations describes the materials they'll use. It calls for partly new brick on the Barrington side, with precast concrete lintels above the windows and cut stone for lower parts of the facade. Looks like they're going to recreate period storefronts with awnings. They're also reducing the reconstruction to 5 storeys.

Truth be told I am not the greatest fan of the current Roy Building facade to begin with. It was built in stages out of just brick and is very messy looking. It's large but is noticeably lower in quality than a bunch of other buildings on Barrington and over the years has deteriorated. On the other end of that block, for example, the Johnston Building is obviously much nicer. For this reason I think the Roy Building is the perfect candidate for this sort of redevelopment. If it's done according to these plans Barrington will just be better off. I hope they can move forward with this quickly.

There are small properties on either side of the Barrington facade that are not included in this development. Is one of these the Johnston Building? Do you know when these buildings were constructed and what condition they are in?

[spaustin]

There are small properties on either side of the Barrington facade that are not included in this development. Is one of these the Johnston Building? Do you know when these buildings were constructed and what condition they are in?

According to the Catalogue of Buildings for the Barrington Street Hertiage District the small neighbours are as follows

To the left:
The Colwell Building (Certainly Cinnamon and the Sushi place) built 1871.
Buckley's Building (United Bookstore) built 1897.
Johnson Building (Little Mysteries) built 1890
To the right:
D'Allaird Building (Vogue Optical) built circa 1950.

The Johnston Building is the provincial government office building at the corner of Prince and Barrington (kind of confusing since there is a Johnston and Johnson in the same block!). It use to be an Eatons department store. It's several doors down on Barrington, but is actually right next to the Roy on the Granville side because both the Roy and Johnston Building are bigger at the back then at the front (they're on L shaped lots). As far as I know, everything on the block except the Roy is in pretty good shape. The Johnston Building has been taken care of by the provincial government and Certainly Cinnamon has had work done on it recently. The Vogue has that ugly modern addition slapped on the top and its upper floors are in use so I would be surprised to hear it has problems.

[fenwick16]

Thanks for all the information. At least these buildings will continue to be intact.

[Jonovision]

I think it looks pretty good myself. Much better than the previous version.
I don't quite understand the red bits on the sackville and granville side. But aside from those I really like the Granville side. I think it looks great.

http://inlinethumb37.webshots.com/8356/2938674740096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2938674740096709958nfYTqS)

http://inlinethumb61.webshots.com/46396/2933423030096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2933423030096709958wShyBR)

Here are the old renderings to compare.

http://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/39082/2303612610096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2303612610096709958XycfDg)

http://inlinethumb61.webshots.com/27900/2976546050096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2976546050096709958HANLDb)

http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/19765/2371345070096709958S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2371345070096709958WNLHXK)

[Phalanx]

Re: The red bits
I don't know... a last ditch attempt to incorporate some wavy glass, maybe? The colour doesn't bother me - I kind of like the look of it - but it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the design at all. It's almost like someone was playing with some concepts and just forgot to remove them from the final rendering. Seems kind of random.

[fenwick16]

The new proposal is a huge improvement over the first set of renderings.

[someone123]

I kind of liked the old wavy glass panels but I don't think they worked very well with this project and the Barrington side left a lot to be desired.

The red is a little strange but I could see it being kind of cool once completed. The planning document seems to suggest that would be an aluminum curtain wall covered in red glass.

I could also see it working nicely with the United Gulf buildings, if those are ever built. With a third new tower on this corner it would look great.

[Dmajackson]

Here's the preliminary Development Agreement going to be presented to the District 12 PAC and HAC;

Case 01172: Development Agreement (http://halifax.ca/boardscom/Dist12PAC/documents/RoyBuildingReport.pdf)

Basically it addresses all the points and it appears this will be a good quality building when done.

It mentions the Barrington Street Heritage District and its compatibility and the dismisses the HRM by Design since it can;t technically be use to debate this one (but of course we all know Sloane will bring it up somehow).

[worldlyhaligonian]

This development fixes the eyesore metal cladding, on the south-east corner of the lot, where exposed brick originally was.

I like it now, good stuff given the way waterside is doing their thing. Overall this does a better job in combining the floors with the base.

If we get IP then the mix of new, retrofitted, and original will really be quite chic. Nova Centre (although many hate its look) actually has a pretty good form, and the atrium would be spectacular.

[Keith P.]

According to allnovascotia.com, this was turned down last night by the Heritage Advisory Committee by a 6-2 vote. To the surprise of nobody, Jennifer Watts opposed it.

[Keith P.]

According to allnovascotia.com, this was turned down last night by the Heritage Advisory Committee by a 6-2 vote. To the surprise of nobody, Jennifer Watts opposed it.

[Takeo]

In their defence... I can't imagine any Heritage Advisory Committee signing up for this. I'm not saying I agree with them. I don't. I'm just saying, from their point of view, there's no way you could vote for this. They're proposing to demolish a heritage building and build a 'disney' look-a-like. Again... I think it's the right thing to do. The Roy is ugly anyway and falling apart. The project should go through. But their mandate is to protect Heritage. So it's an open and shut case from their point of view. I don't blame them for voting against it.

[beyeas]

To be honest... I am not a fan of this.
I have basically supported it, but more so because I don't want to see Barrington fall into disrepair. But the more I think about it, the less I feel I can support this project, because I don't think this project is the best way to achieve that goal. The design seems to be middle-of-the-road, and although it isn't a bad design it really is not anything spectacular. Although it attempts to incorporate elements of the surrounding buildings, it is in fact a complete demo (not that the Roy Building is anything amazing, but still).

I guess if this were some spectacular new building, I would be in favour. Instead I feel like we would be better off putting more energy (and meagre financial resources) as a city into getting some of the really high quality in-fill projects done (UG, Salter, Farmer's Market condos). I would rather put great buildings on a parking lots as a way of getting more people downtown, than knock down existing streetscapes in the hopes that this saves the street. I think that if the above 3 developments went ahead successfully, we would have many more people living downtown and that in and of itself would recesitate Barrington, and make the street-front business (and the rents for them that would be required to upkeep the buildings) more viable.

I won't be upset if this project dies... whereas I will be very upset if in-fill projects like UG and Salter don't go ahead. This just is not a high enough quality project to make me think that it, and the consequent demo of part of the existing street-scape, should happen instead of one of the very high quality projects that would be built on empty lots (and let's be realistic, it is an "instead" situation, given the limited financial markets and condo demand). I don't want this building to simply fall over one day, but equally I just don't think this is the way to save it (or at least this design isn't the way).

[DigitalNinja]

Not everything can be high quality, you have to start somewhere, and every city needs a mix of high and medium quality buildings.
This would be a step up from the current Roy building which was built between the late 1800's up to 1949 :P
Anyway it's a decrepit piece of crap. It wouldn't be worth it to renovate and starfish thought they were doing a favor by re creating it. Which would probably look better than what is there now.

[Takeo]

I don't understand the point of the re-do to be honest. If you're going to demo the building anyway... design something brand new. Sure... it can be a three story masonry base of some kind to fit in with the scale and character of the streetscape... but just start over. Make it new and modern. Sure it might HINT at the original building. But do something new. Don't make a disney version of the old building. What is the point of that? You're not saving it. You're demolishing it. And you're not creating something new either. I just don't get it. A re-creation seems pointless and dishonest. Save it... for real. Or do something NEW... for real. Just make it real. Real is the key word here. Not "quality". Quality is about thoughtfulness. Not price.

[JET]

Not everything can be high quality, you have to start somewhere, and every city needs a mix of high and medium quality buildings.
This would be a step up from the current Roy building which was built between the late 1800's up to 1949 :P
Anyway it's a decrepit piece of crap. It wouldn't be worth it to renovate and starfish thought they were doing a favor by re creating it. Which would probably look better than what is there now.

The Roy building is actually quite a neat building inside, with a wide range of interesting people and services. People want an interesting vibrant downtown and this building is filled with these people. The stairs, the offices and the people make a great community. Shame to lose all that. Too bad it couldn't remain as it is and build above it. Probably not possible, but too bad all the same. JET

[kwajo]

I don't understand the point of the re-do to be honest. If you're going to demo the building anyway... design something brand new. Sure... it can be a three story masonry base of some kind to fit in with the scale and character of the streetscape... but just start over. Make it new and modern. Sure it might HINT at the original building. But do something new. Don't make a disney version of the old building. What is the point of that? You're not saving it. You're demolishing it. And you're not creating something new either. I just don't get it. A re-creation seems pointless and dishonest. Save it... for real. Or do something NEW... for real. Just make it real. Real is the key word here. Not "quality". Quality is about thoughtfulness. Not price.
I agree with this sentiment, I just don't see the point of re-creating the old facades if you're tearing the whole thing down in the first place. Either save the old structure entirely or if it's being torn-down then get creative with the space and design something new. I would love to see the building replaced on Barrington by a very modern take on the neighbouring facades, sort of like what Gehry did on the Dancing House in Prague. Then you could top it with a fairly generic glass tower if you wanted, but at least go all-new from the ground level upward. I'm tired of this trend of putting set-back new towers on old facades, it's lazy and uninteresting, and Halifax deserves better.

[Phalanx]

Aren't most of these compromises (rebuilding facades, set-backs etc.) an attempt to make the construction more palatable to the heritage community? (And in doing so make it more likely to get approved... in theory, anyway)

I don't know if it's possible to actually do anything without compromise (within the limits of HBD and sympathetic to its surroundings, of course) on Barrington these days. Especially if it means demolishing an existing building.

[beyeas]

Not everything can be high quality, you have to start somewhere, and every city needs a mix of high and medium quality buildings.
This would be a step up from the current Roy building which was built between the late 1800's up to 1949 :P
Anyway it's a decrepit piece of crap. It wouldn't be worth it to renovate and starfish thought they were doing a favor by re creating it. Which would probably look better than what is there now.

True... and like I said, I have basically supported this. I guess my thinking has drifted in part because I worry that the more low/medium quality projects go ahead, the fewer high quality ones that will also go ahead because of the limited condo demand and financing. I fear we may just end up with the majority of projects being the low/mid, with very few high quality in the downtown core. That is, unfortunately, how development in Halifax has gone in the past (to be cynical) with the city "settling" for things that are just ok, and losing out on many high end projects that just go by the wayside. I don't think this is a BAD proposal, I would just rather see other ones get the go-ahead well before this, and this one going ahead may in fact mean that a better one dies.

[sdm]

True... and like I said, I have basically supported this. I guess my thinking has drifted in part because I worry that the more low/medium quality projects go ahead, the fewer high quality ones that will also go ahead because of the limited condo demand and financing. I fear we may just end up with the majority of projects being the low/mid, with very few high quality in the downtown core. That is, unfortunately, how development in Halifax has gone in the past (to be cynical) with the city "settling" for things that are just ok, and losing out on many high end projects that just go by the wayside. I don't think this is a BAD proposal, I would just rather see other ones get the go-ahead well before this, and this one going ahead may in fact mean that a better one dies.

the other approved projects are being held due to market conditions and economic climate. This one will be no different, and if it does go ahead it will have an effect on some of the projects approved, but if a tenant is looking for the level of say a International Place they probably won't consider this development.

Personally i don't care for the proposal presented.

I rather see the majority of height allowed to be closer to the water and not higher up the hill.

[sdm]

Aren't most of these compromises (rebuilding facades, set-backs etc.) an attempt to make the construction more palatable to the heritage community? (And in doing so make it more likely to get approved... in theory, anyway)

I don't know if it's possible to actually do anything without compromise (within the limits of HBD and sympathetic to its surroundings, of course) on Barrington these days. Especially if it means demolishing an existing building.

I believe council made a mistake in grandfathering this proposal, and it should have been forced to go through the HBD process.

[fenwick16]

This one looks very good to me. I think that it will be a good addition.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Its better than waterside... the building looks like shit right now.

[Wishblade]

Its better than waterside... the building looks like shit right now.

Waterside or the Roy? I don't think waterside looks all that bad. Atleast its glass lol.

[fenwick16]

The new renderings of the Roy building have mostly glass on the upper exterior. The first set of renderings didn't look so great but I think the new design looks great.

[sdm]

Its better than waterside... the building looks like shit right now.

I've seen some new renderings of Waterside and there has been some changes that make it look better IMO.

Not really fair to compare the two as one has a significantly larger foot print while the other doesn't (probably like 3/4's less). On top of that the buildings at Waterside are Heritage buildings, while the Roy it is not so therefore less can be accomplished.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I meant the Roy building in its current state is terrible... its falling apart and than metal retaining wall is ugly as sin.

That is great news on changes to the Waterside Centre that will make it more attractive...

[sdm]

I meant the Roy building in its current state is terrible... its falling apart and than metal retaining wall is ugly as sin.

That is great news on changes to the Waterside Centre that will make it more attractive...

from what i can remember the changes are significant set back on top floor creating large roof top patios.

And the curtain wall facing the harbour has a small change as well.

[Dmajackson]

from what i can remember the changes are significant set back on top floor creating large roof top patios.

And the curtain wall facing the harbour has a small change as well.

The DA shows the setback area being used not only for the larger patios but also for a green roof (grass and flowers)

[Dmajackson]

A little bump in the road for this and the Discovery Centre proposal;

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100112ca1113.pdf

[Keith P.]

Bureaucracy at its best...:koko:

[sdm]

Bureaucracy at its best...:koko:

yup, everyone knew this was going to happen didn't they.

[spaustin]

Seems like a routine correction to a minor oversight. What's the big deal?

[fenwick16]

I just read the HRM link quickly, but it doesn't sound like this is a delay to construction (but maybe I missed something). I would like to see this one proceed since it looks like a positive development.

[Dmajackson]

For about the fourth time in as many months this is going before the PAC and HAC tonight.

[Wishblade]

For about the fourth time in as many months this is going before the PAC and HAC tonight.

Why has it gone before them so many times? I have no idea what happened in the other meetings.

[Dmajackson]

Why has it gone before them so many times? I have no idea what happened in the other meetings.

I should rephrase what I said a bit I think.

The last three or so HAC meetings have been cancelled so the proposal has been ready for months but for reasons I don't know the meetings kept on being cancelled.

[Wishblade]

Ah that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up :)

[tribeachpunk]

When I went for my walk the other day I snapped a quick picture of the Roy Building.. It was my favourite of the day but everyone likes the others more..

So no photos of this building posted for a couple of pages so...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii170/tribeachpunk/22mar2010/54d67896.jpg (http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii170/tribeachpunk/22mar2010/128d10a1.jpg)

;)

[fenwick16]

When I went for my walk the other day I snapped a quick picture of the Roy Building.. It was my favourite of the day but everyone likes the others more..

So no photos of this building posted for a couple of pages so...

Thanks for the photo. I wonder if the original brick will be saved when the Roy building is redeveloped?

[cormiermax]

What phase is this project going threw?

[sdm]

Roy Building redevelopment plan stalled
Legislative snag delays public hearing into downtown construction
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Thu. Apr 8 - 4:54 AM

A legislative oversight has delayed a public hearing on the Roy Building development in downtown Halifax.

The development, which includes the demolition of the Barrington Street building, the reconstruction of its historic facade and the construction of a 17-storey tower above it, was to have gone to a public hearing in March, said Rob Landry, property manager with building owner Starfish Properties.

But the hearing was postponed because of the need to amend municipal legislation affecting the project, Landry said Wednesday.

"Nothing is planned at the moment," he said in an interview, adding that the building, which extends to Granville Street, is still leasing space to tenants. "We have no plans to proceed with demolition."

Landry referred questions on whether Starfish is upset about the delay to the Toronto-based company’s principal, Louis Reznick, who was out of the country and couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

The legislative issue, which came to light earlier this year, involves "grandfathering" provisions made for the Roy project and for Frank Medjuck’s nearby Discovery Centre building development.

The developments were grandfathered under the Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy but require similar provisions under the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District Revitalization Plan and Bylaw.

A report on the "drafting error" concluded that municipal council would have to refuse both applications since there are no policies in the heritage district plan that would enable council to consider approving them.

Andy Fillmore, HRM’s urban design manager, said in January the errors were "very fixable" but would require a public hearing that would likely draw critics of the developments, which are taller than the heritage district’s 21.6-metre height limit.

Peter Delefes, head of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the projects made no sense in a heritage zone and the trust would oppose them.

Medjuck, president of 1595 Investments Ltd., which owns the Discovery Centre building, is still waiting to hear from HRM on what he called a "procedural" matter that doesn’t affect his development plan.

"Nothing has changed," he said Wednesday. "I’m hopeful."

In the meantime, Medjuck has signed an agreement to keep the Discovery Centre at the Barrington Street location and has tweaked the design of the mixed- use complex, which will be shorter than originally planned.

"My inclination is to go residential," he said, noting a lot of new office space is coming on the market.

Medjuck said the approval process may take time — "I’m used to it" — but he didn’t have a fixed timeline to begin construction.

A nearby development, the 27-storey "Twisted Sister" twin tower, is about 18 months away from construction due to protracted municipal approvals that took almost five years, said Navid Saberi of United Gulf Developments Ltd.

Saberi, whose firm moved on to other projects while the Twisted Sister approval process dragged on, said new municipal development rules stifle creativity.

"This city is slow to get things done," he said, noting that three United Gulf condo projects have been under review for almost two years. "It’s ridiculous."

HRM planner Kelly Denty said Wednesday that a staff report on grandfathering provisions for the Barrington heritage conservation bylaw went to council in January and the matter is still "in process."

( berskine@herald.ca)

[Dmajackson]

^Damn you literally just beat me by a minute to post that. :P

[fenwick16]

"This city is slow to get things done," he said, noting that three United Gulf condo projects have been under review for almost two years. "It’s ridiculous."

I took this quote from the article posted above. This is what frustrates me. It is no wonder that companies are building in the suburbs instead of downtown Halifax. Heritage has been both good and bad for Halifax. It is getting to the point where it is killing the downtown. Add the HRM bureaucracy to the heritage issue and it is easy to see how politicians and special interest groups can halt growth in a city. This is residential which is exactly what is needed in downtown Halifax to support retail.

Andy Fillmore, HRM’s urban design manager, said in January the errors were "very fixable" but would require a public hearing that would likely draw critics of the developments, which are taller than the heritage district’s 21.6-metre height limit.

Why does everything require a public inquiry? This was already discussed prior to the HRM by Design. Does the city really need to be paying the salary of an urban design manager? It seems that the city needs more staff with economics and commerce background not additional heritage focused architects.

[Jonovision]

Why does everything require a public inquiry? This was already discussed prior to the HRM by Design. Does the city really need to be paying the salary of an urban design manager? It seems that the city needs more staff with economics and commerce background not additional heritage focused architects.

It is standard procedure for any substantive amendment to a municipal planning strategy to require a public hearing. It happens in most cities.

And with regards to Andy. I think he is great. If you look at the buildings built in this cityin the last fifty years, I believe a urban design manager is exactly what we need. It's the economics and commerce people that gave us the downtown we have today. Perhaps we woulnd't be in such rough shape if we had had more people thinking about the downtown and a whole and how each new building integrates into that whole.

I thought the article was pretty positive. As was the convention center article today. I felt somewhat refreshed reading them, even though they both spoke of delays. I'm glad to hear that the discovery centre will be staying downtown and I look forward to seeing the revised design for that building.

[planarchy]

If you look at the buildings built in this cityin the last fifty years, I believe a urban design manager is exactly what we need. It's the economics and commerce people that gave us the downtown we have today. Perhaps we woulnd't be in such rough shape if we had had more people thinking about the downtown and a whole and how each new building integrates into that whole.

I agree. We need more people in the planning department with some vision and the ability to look beyond each individual development proposal. This sort of piecemeal ad-hoc approach to development in Halifax is partially the fault of its mostly economic/engineering approach to urban planning. The city needs people with the ability to work at various scales to develop both flexible regional strategies, as well as encourage sound urbanism/urban design principles. The fact that there is only one person responsible for urban design issues, while there are numerous planners trained in the 'fine art' :sly: of subdivision planning is a big factor in the poor support and decisions made for/on the peninsula in the past 20 years.

[fenwick16]

It is standard procedure for any substantive amendment to a municipal planning strategy to require a public hearing. It happens in most cities.

And with regards to Andy. I think he is great. If you look at the buildings built in this cityin the last fifty years, I believe a urban design manager is exactly what we need. It's the economics and commerce people that gave us the downtown we have today. Perhaps we woulnd't be in such rough shape if we had had more people thinking about the downtown and a whole and how each new building integrates into that whole.

I thought the article was pretty positive. As was the convention center article today. I felt somewhat refreshed reading them, even though they both spoke of delays. I'm glad to hear that the discovery centre will be staying downtown and I look forward to seeing the revised design for that building.

I agree with most of what you have said. However, the city must also be fair since they promised to grandfather these development in. If they aren't fair then someone could end up taking a loss or have to walk away from a development. The city should be doing all that they can to speed up the process for the sake of the businessmen and developers who keep the city moving forward. The alternative is a dead and decaying downtown.

The usual speed of "at the leisure and convenience of the city" is not good enough to help Halifax move forward.

[someone123]

Bottom line is that there's something seriously wrong if it takes years to decide whether or not to allow a development to move forward.

[halifaxboyns]

Why does everything require a public inquiry? This was already discussed prior to the HRM by Design. Does the city really need to be paying the salary of an urban design manager? It seems that the city needs more staff with economics and commerce background not additional heritage focused architects.

It's a pretty standard proceedure in most planning legislation. Regardless of whether it's a substantial amendment or not - it must go through the Bylaw process.

I know in Alberta, it says quite clearly in our Municipal Government - every Bylaw must have 3 readings. Public Hearing occurs before 2nd (at least it does here in Calgary) and because in order for zoning maps and bylaws to be amended, it needs a bylaw to do it - public hearing it is!

[Keith P.]

I agree. We need more people in the planning department with some vision and the ability to look beyond each individual development proposal.

Only if we can get rid of twice as many existing planners at HRM as new ones get hired. There are far too many of these people that contribute little yet chew up huge amounts of time and money.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I'm glad to hear that the discovery centre will be staying downtown and I look forward to seeing the revised design for that building.

Agreed, also glad to hear this project may become residential since their are already office projects further along in the process. Downtown needs many more people before anything really turns around.

[sdm]

Bottom line is that there's something seriously wrong if it takes years to decide whether or not to allow a development to move forward.

And from what i can see its taking what i believe long to get things approved under HRM by design so far.

What one project so far, with a couple waiting still.

[halifaxboyns]

I don't want to bash my fellow professional planners - bureaucracy works in strange ways. There are advantages to the system that HRM has; where the planners do most of the work and then the Development Officer does the permit. There are also inherent disadvantages.

For example the City of Edmonton has planners that do the zoning only; they don't do the permit work (much like HRM) and then a DO approves or refuses the permit. Then they have special planners who only work on policy work for broad (city wide) right to specific areas (downtown area plans).

In Calgary it's way more complicated. A team of planners does the zoning, then another group of planners or techs does the permit work and signs off. Then there is a team of policy planners that are region wide, specific areas and one team for downtown. The regional group also works with the surrounding County's or City's on administrating a regional plan, which all groups agreed upon.

After looking at Calgary's process, versus HRM's - with some tweaking I am sure HRM's could work well. I'd love to come back and practice, just the pay difference would be killer (i'm not the only one). But I'm sure as I get a bit older; that will change.

It just takes someone to think out of the box to ask the complex questions - that's the start of making the process better, but both Edmonton and Calgary have their problems. I know of stuff going forward for public hearings in both cities that are 5 years old and only now getting a decision!! So I'd say each place has it's own problems - no where is perfect.

[beyeas]

Agreed, also glad to hear this project may become residential since their are already office projects further along in the process. Downtown needs many more people before anything really turns around.

Totally agree. Downtown will continue to be empty and will never be able to support retail until more people are living there. The Discovery Centre proposal and the UG development have the potential, if built, to be a majot catalyst for changing the direction of downtown. I would argue that those two together would have far more impact on the turn-around of downtown than the Nova Centre would.

Barrington will never again be able to support large scale retail (e.g. the sort of Woolworth's size retail), but people who would choose to live at UG for example are doing so because they want to be able to walk to amenities, and will therefore need the sorts of day-to-day shopping that those people will need.

[DigitalNinja]

RAH! RAGE!
Lol. I was hoping this one would go through without a hitch, Roy looks like crap on the outside but inside it is quite nice. Residential would be a welcome addition here, if this and the discovery centre proposals go residential we would get a good influx of people downtown.

[someone123]

Totally agree. Downtown will continue to be empty and will never be able to support retail until more people are living there. The Discovery Centre proposal and the UG development have the potential, if built, to be a majot catalyst for changing the direction of downtown. I would argue that those two together would have far more impact on the turn-around of downtown than the Nova Centre would.

Barrington will never again be able to support large scale retail (e.g. the sort of Woolworth's size retail), but people who would choose to live at UG for example are doing so because they want to be able to walk to amenities, and will therefore need the sorts of day-to-day shopping that those people will need.

The are multiple problems downtown that tend to be conflated because they're similar and caused by some of the same things - a lack of investment and red tape.

The first problem is that there has been very little office development downtown and a lot of development in the suburbs. This is mostly a problem in terms of economic growth (business people complain about this) and sprawl - it would be a lot nicer to have clusters of companies downtown than spread out businesses in Burnside that are more expensive to provide municipal services to and that ultimately result in a lower quality of living for a lot of people in the city.

The second problem is that there are a lot of underused heritage buildings (Heritage Trust complains about this) and that there is not enough demand for retail (everybody complains about this since it makes things look dumpy). New office buildings might help marginally here but I agree that they're not the solution - Barrington already has lots of office workers and they only provide minor demand for a narrow range of products and services. Residents would help a lot more, although they're also not a complete solution on their own.

A full solution for the downtown requires some new office buildings (already happening to some degree) and lots of new residents (not happening yet). The downtown needs a good mix of uses and a local population of thousands of people who will be around after 5. The downtown needs to be made competitive with other areas, mostly through public investment. Taxes should be proportional to the cost of providing services (currently they're tuned to "magical downtown cash cow" levels) and there should be more maintenance in terms of new public buildings, street improvements, transit improvements, and better development regulations.

Some of this stuff is already happening although it is far, far slower than I would have liked. The last decade was utterly wasted as far as downtown development is concerned, which is really sad because the city's economy has been doing great. I'm hopeful because we're seeing stuff like a development plan for the NFB Building, but then again I'll believe it when they actually start construction because this has been announced before.

[sdm]

RAH! RAGE!
Lol. I was hoping this one would go through without a hitch, Roy looks like crap on the outside but inside it is quite nice. Residential would be a welcome addition here, if this and the discovery centre proposals go residential we would get a good influx of people downtown.

the best use for the Roy building would be to convert it to loft apartments in its current size. The interior and romance of the building will never be replicated in the new building.

[fenwick16]

Roy Building redevelopment plan stalled
Legislative snag delays public hearing into downtown construction
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Thu. Apr 8 - 4:54 AM

A legislative oversight has delayed a public hearing on the Roy Building development in downtown Halifax.

The development, which includes the demolition of the Barrington Street building, the reconstruction of its historic facade and the construction of a 17-storey tower above it, was to have gone to a public hearing in March, said Rob Landry, property manager with building owner Starfish Properties.

But the hearing was postponed because of the need to amend municipal legislation affecting the project, Landry said Wednesday.

"Nothing is planned at the moment," he said in an interview, adding that the building, which extends to Granville Street, is still leasing space to tenants. "We have no plans to proceed with demolition."

Landry referred questions on whether Starfish is upset about the delay to the Toronto-based company’s principal, Louis Reznick, who was out of the country and couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

The legislative issue, which came to light earlier this year, involves "grandfathering" provisions made for the Roy project and for Frank Medjuck’s nearby Discovery Centre building development.

The developments were grandfathered under the Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy but require similar provisions under the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District Revitalization Plan and Bylaw.

A report on the "drafting error" concluded that municipal council would have to refuse both applications since there are no policies in the heritage district plan that would enable council to consider approving them.

Andy Fillmore, HRM’s urban design manager, said in January the errors were "very fixable" but would require a public hearing that would likely draw critics of the developments, which are taller than the heritage district’s 21.6-metre height limit.

Peter Delefes, head of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the projects made no sense in a heritage zone and the trust would oppose them.

Medjuck, president of 1595 Investments Ltd., which owns the Discovery Centre building, is still waiting to hear from HRM on what he called a "procedural" matter that doesn’t affect his development plan.

"Nothing has changed," he said Wednesday. "I’m hopeful."

In the meantime, Medjuck has signed an agreement to keep the Discovery Centre at the Barrington Street location and has tweaked the design of the mixed- use complex, which will be shorter than originally planned.

"My inclination is to go residential," he said, noting a lot of new office space is coming on the market.

Medjuck said the approval process may take time — "I’m used to it" — but he didn’t have a fixed timeline to begin construction.

A nearby development, the 27-storey "Twisted Sister" twin tower, is about 18 months away from construction due to protracted municipal approvals that took almost five years, said Navid Saberi of United Gulf Developments Ltd.

Saberi, whose firm moved on to other projects while the Twisted Sister approval process dragged on, said new municipal development rules stifle creativity.

"This city is slow to get things done," he said, noting that three United Gulf condo projects have been under review for almost two years. "It’s ridiculous."

HRM planner Kelly Denty said Wednesday that a staff report on grandfathering provisions for the Barrington heritage conservation bylaw went to council in January and the matter is still "in process."

( berskine@herald.ca)

Somebody should ask the councillor of this district why these two projects aren't going ahead. Are these too tall? Based on surveys, most people in the HRM are not against tall buildings.

We have seen one project after another halted in the downtown core. Over the past decade, the downtown core has come to a virtual standstill. How much longer will Halifax area residents tolerate this? The HbD has resulted in one small development. Is this really the idea of success; one approved plan to renovate a 5 storey building? But it isn't this Roy building redevelopment - which was proposed a few years ago - this one has of course been indefinitely delayed. I guess because it is over 7 storeys tall.

[someone123]

the best use for the Roy building would be to convert it to loft apartments in its current size. The interior and romance of the building will never be replicated in the new building.

I'm really not sure what I think about this proposal.. the Roy Building exterior is not currently very attractive, but maybe that is due to a lack of maintenance. Either way, this building was full of tenants and was working just fine until the proposal came forward and people were kicked out.

I suspect that it would be best, as you say, to just renovate it. There isn't going to be demand for the 6 or 7 new office buildings planned downtown and there are other opportunity sites close to this building. This is already one of the larger structures on Barrington.

[fenwick16]

It might not be feasible to renovate it as it is and to upgrade it to current building codes. It is hard to tell what construction method is used, but the floors might be wood and possibly rotting.

If completely rebuilt then it would meet current building codes and probably be built with cement floors and standard construction except for the exterior. So it would be a new building. These old buildings don't last indefinitely, so doing a simple interior renovation might not be a long term solution. In order to do the rebuild, the developers would probably need to add space in order to make money on the venture. Based on published articles, the NFB proposal is just marginally profitable by adding space and through obtaining a municipal subsidy to help with maintaining the exterior.

[someone123]

I know very little about the structural state of the Roy Building.

It is true that old buildings sometimes need serious maintenance and occasionally have problems that can't be solved without tearing them apart, but it's not true that they're all basically disposable and have to come down after some given period. In Halifax there are wooden buildings from the 1750s, and in Europe and Asia some are much older. The key is that they need to be kept up. I find it very dishonest when they are ignored for decades and then the owner pretends as if there was something wrong with the building from the start.

[fenwick16]

Just based on doing renovations on a previously owned old house (early 1930's) in Brantford, Ontario and doing some work on an old home outside Sydney, NS, such renovations are more a labour of love (or inexperience) as opposed to being money makers. I can't see there being much money to be made in renovating a building like the Roy building. This is why these old buildings end up being neglected. It would make more sense for a developer to buy cheap land in the suburbs and build something new.

Old federal and provincial buildings (like Province House) cost millions to maintain but the federal and provincial governments don't have to make a profit on doing the renovations.

[JET]

Just based on doing renovations on a previously owned old house (early 1930's) in Brantford, Ontario and doing some work on an old home outside Sydney, NS, such renovations are more a labour of love (or inexperience) as opposed to being money makers. I can't see there being much money to be made in renovating a building like the Roy building. This is why these old buildings end up being neglected. It would make more sense for a developer to buy cheap land in the suburbs and build something new.

Old federal and provincial buildings (like Province House) cost millions to maintain but the federal and provincial governments don't have to make a profit on doing the renovations.

The Roy building is actually quite fine the way it is, my bet is that since it's never been ignored it's probably quite stable, and since it was built well would last long with minimal upkeep. If a new building replaced it, then there would be a shelf life issue. It's got good bones, and is lovely inside. JET

[spaustin]

Noticed today that a clothing store (24 or 28 or something like that) has moved into the small building on the corner of Granville and Sackville where Brooks Travel use to be. It's one of the buildings that is slated for demolition if this proposal proceeds. Caught my eye as I thought the previous tenants in those buildings (Brooks and that hair salon) were given the bums rush. Starfish's development agreement has obviously not sped through the municipal process, what with staffing needing to first get the amendment to allow them to grandfather the proposal. Pure speculation on my part, but unless the new clothing store is on a short-term lease, Starfish is probably looking at this one as being a few years out. The market conditions have changed since they first made their proposal and their other project right across the street has been approved and could get started at anytime. Might be stretching them and Barrington Street to do both at the same time.

[Dmajackson]

Noticed today that a clothing store (24 or 28 or something like that) has moved into the small building on the corner of Granville and Sackville where Brooks Travel use to be. It's one of the buildings that is slated for demolition if this proposal proceeds. Caught my eye as I thought the previous tenants in those buildings (Brooks and that hair salon) were given the bums rush. Starfish's development agreement has obviously not sped through the municipal process, what with staffing needing to first get the amendment to allow them to grandfather the proposal. Pure speculation on my part, but unless the new clothing store is on a short-term lease, Starfish is probably looking at this one as being a few years out. The market conditions have changed since they first made their proposal and their other project right across the street has been approved and could get started at anytime. Might be stretching them and Barrington Street to do both at the same time.

By across the street do you mean the Sam The Record Man project or the Discovery Centre project?

[spaustin]

By across the street do you mean the Sam The Record Man project or the Discovery Centre project?

The Sam the Record Man project. It's Starfish too, it's smaller and has cleared all regulatory hurdles. I suspect they'll concentrate on that and that the Roy is going to the back burner.

[someone123]

It's unfortunate that the tenants were kicked out of the Roy Building prematurely.

You'd think that any developer in this city would budget a couple of years for a development permit. The bureaucracy in Halifax is so slow that you could sign 3 year leases right after submitting a development and still wait years after the leases are up.

[fenwick16]

According to the allnovascotia.com, the Roy project and the Discovery Centre project are now being held up provincial bureaucracy. The Roy project has been moved to the Communities, Culture and Heritage portfolio under Dave Wilson. Is this a good sign or bad?

[halifaxboyns]

According to the allnovascotia.com, the Roy project and the Discovery Centre project are now being held up provincial bureaucracy. The Roy project has been moved to the Communities, Culture and Heritage portfolio under Dave Wilson. Is this a good sign or bad?

Must have been a creation of a new branch - so who knows. Last I heard wasn't heritage under SNSMR?

[macgregor]

According to the allnovascotia.com, the Roy project and the Discovery Centre project are now being held up provincial bureaucracy. The Roy project has been moved to the Communities, Culture and Heritage portfolio under Dave Wilson. Is this a good sign or bad?

This seems a lot like the problem that was discussed in the PDCentre report (http://pdcentre.ca/images/SEEK004_web_21Dec2010.pdf) and might be assigned to the Municipal Relations crowd because provincial legislation might need an amendment

The first year of the District being in effect has not been without controversy. A ‘drafting error’ is being blamed for holding up two projects that had been grandfathered into the new planning strategy. During the planning process, four projects were ‘grandfathered’ into the HRM by Design documents, meaning they were allowed to proceed under the regulations in place at time the proposal was filed. The drafting error occurred because two projects, a development proposed on the site of the Roy Building, and another on the site of the Discovery Centre, were grandfathered in to the new Downtown MPS but not the Heritage Conservation District legislation. Since the proposals do not meet the new height limits imposed by the Heritage Conservation District guidelines, Council has no way to approve them, meaning they are unable to fulfill their original intention of allowing the proposals to be considered. To rectify this situation, HRM council is considering amendments to the Heritage Conservation District regulations; if these amendments are approved, both projects will be considered under development agreements that require a public hearing, giving the people of Halifax a chance to voice their opinions about the projects. (Seek Issue 4)

[halifaxboyns]

Wow I had no idea that the 'mess up' was anywhere near as bad as that article is saying. It certainly didn't seem it when I read the report?
Wow who knew!? I'm sure the developers are putting some pressure on them now...

[Jonovision]

Hearings to be set for downtown tower proposals


By CHRIS LAMBIE

Business Editor

More than a year after the problem first came to light, Halifax Regional Municipal­ity says it ready to go ahead with reviews and public hearings on two large devel­opments on Barrington Street that were nearly sidelined by an “oversight."

Large towers planned for sites that now house the Discovery Centre and the Roy Building were grandfathered under the Downtown Halifax Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy. But city staffers realized in January 2010 that similar grandfather­ing’ provisions were required under the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District Revitalization Plan.

“No question, it’s been a very long time just to get that hiccup fixed," Kelly Denty, the city’s supervisor of planning applica­tions, said Thursday. “It’s been a year. We had hoped it would be much shorter."

The city reported Thursday that the “two long-standing development proposals for Barrington Street will be considered through a development application process that predates HRMByDesign provisions."

Both proposals are taller than the 21 metres allowed under the new rules, Denty said. “For us it was a technical exercise because it was a bit of an oops," she said.

“We amended one document without remembering to amend the other and we thought it was pretty straightforward. But . . . it’s taken a year to get us back to where we were before we realized we needed the amendment."

The amendment went to public hearing in August and then to the province in September for the required approval, she said.

“We just got word back from the prov­ince, I think it was yesterday, that they had been signed off," she said Thursday.

Each project will now have to go to its own public hearing.

That should happen within 90 days, Denty said.

If the municipal planning strategy amendments are approved by council, they will be sent to the province for its approv­al, which normally takes a month, she said.

(clambie@herald.ca)

[someone123]

And yet we have Tim Bousqet cranking out articles claiming that there's nothing to hold developers back. Cleary that's not true -- most projects downtown run into some sort of snag.

[Dmajackson]

Development Agreement for the site (http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/Dist12PAC/documents/RoyBuildingReport.pdf)

[halifaxboyns]

I like the wording of this report better than the one for the Discovery Centre Site. The planner went into great detail to look at the UARB appeals at Midtown and Twisted Sisters and make sure that was mentioned and how the whole issue of 'adjacent' to citadell hill is defused. So that should take some steam out of Heritage Arguements. I wish they had done that in the report for discovery centre.