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

[ILoveHalifax]

I hope the Roy Building moves forward soon and that the tower is completely redesigned. If the design holds it will be a permanent eyesore.

I so agree. I thought I was the only one who does not like the design- if we can even call it a design. I say bring in the wrecking ball and dozers.

[Drybrain]

I so agree. I thought I was the only one who does not like the design- if we can even call it a design. I say bring in the wrecking ball and dozers.

Oh, I don't like tower design either. The renderings don't even really show much of a design. I'd like to see a proper rendering with a clear idea of A: What the tower will look like, and B: Exactly how the podium will be constructed (what I want is as much salvaged/reconstructed material as possible, not some faux Victorian awfulness).

[counterfactual]

There was an article in ANS tonight about a planned meeting between the mayor and Lou Reznick. There weren't any details really but so far it does seem like Michael Savage is genuinely more focused on the downtown than Peter Kelly was. The old council and mayor tried to give all parts of the city equal time and this effectively put the core at a huge disadvantage since it is much busier and much more complicated than other districts.

I wonder what they'll discuss. Hopefully the Roy Building and 1592 Barrington projects are staged appropriately. Barrington Espace went on for a very long time and the Roy Building is a major eyesore.

Any word on how that meeting went?

I really don't get Reznick, and why his development work seems to take eons. It's not for want of financial backing, given that his partner on a lot of these ventures/purchases is Ronald Kimel, who has the cash to do things like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/realestate/big-deal-w-south-beach-a-sexy-investment-but-read-the-fine-print.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Also, he is very opaque with this dealings, and, at least it seems, often declines comments or inquiries from media/local politicians, trying to understand what it is he has in mind for Barrington. Or if he actually aims to use his army of 5 Moes to keep Barrington in a perpetual state of blasted-out-lots-and-empty-buildings-with-development-plans-that-never-seem-to-happen.

I kinda wish more local developers, like Wadih / Frances Fares, would be more involved on Barrington, that is, people who are more clear about their vision and seem to actually get their projects done within a reasonable time. Here's Fares talking about incentives to encourage not just development, but faster development, downtown:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1136737-panel-downtown-on-rise

I think taxing empty parking lots makes sense...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Its more of a management issue that a vision issue probably. They all have their own drawbacks as developers, but progress is the biggest of them all.

I doubt the renderings for the Roy are even real designs, just mocks likely.

[Drybrain]

The slowness is super frustrating. But the work is high quality--I'd trade off time for quality, every time. (though in the case of Espace, it seems like they're basically done and just procrastinating on the mop-up/opening.)

[someone123]

The Roy Building is the only Reznick/Starfish development I am worried about. It is a bit unfair to say that they are neglectful of the downtown since they actually own a lot of other properties in the area that are in great shape.

I do agree that it would be nice if most developers focused on the Barrington and lower streets. Maybe this will happen as some of the holes around the periphery of the downtown fill in.

[counterfactual]

The Roy Building is the only Reznick/Starfish development I am worried about. It is a bit unfair to say that they are neglectful of the downtown since they actually own a lot of other properties in the area that are in great shape.

I do agree that it would be nice if most developers focused on the Barrington and lower streets. Maybe this will happen as some of the holes around the periphery of the downtown fill in.

Agreed, Reznick's work on Attica building is great. Just wish the developments would take shape a little faster. I mean, there is nothing holding up Roy Building other than... whenever Starfish get around to doing whatever it is they plan to do. I mostly worry that they'll demolish the Roy and then we'll be sitting with another huge blasted out hole on Barrington for a few years...

As for other developers, yeah, I can see the attraction for developers around SGR, obviously. But just hope that with a few developments taking off (like the Bank of Canada proposal by Soutwest) that maybe they'll take notice too...

[someone123]

There was a story in ANS stating that the city has approved condos for this development. Starfish has a permit for a certain layout and they can begin marketing the units whenever they want. In order for the development to proceed under its grandfathered DA, it needs to start by October 2014.

The article put what seems to be an unnecessary negative spin on the story, claiming that the commercial and apartment situation in the area is "glum" and that Barrington is "lined with empty buildings". There aren't really many empty buildings except the Roy Building, and that's the one the article is about.

Anyway, I hope the Barrington developments all work out.

[ILoveHalifax]

There was a story in ANS stating that the city has approved condos for this development. Starfish has a permit for a certain layout and they can begin marketing the units whenever they want. In order for the development to proceed under its grandfathered DA, it needs to start by October 2014.

The article put what seems to be an unnecessary negative spin on the story, claiming that the commercial and apartment situation in the area is "glum" and that Barrington is "lined with empty buildings". There aren't really many empty buildings except the Roy Building, and that's the one the article is about.

Anyway, I hope the Barrington developments all work out.

I mentioned earlier this year how dismal retail is in the downtown area. I recently walked Barrington south to Blowers to Grafton and up Spring Garden Rd. YES!!!!! there are many empty buildings, and retail spaces. Something needs to be done.

[RyeJay]

The developer for the Roy Building needs to get of their ass.

Have there been any whispers about what the purchase of the attached properties could imply for the Roy Building?

And what the hell is this development going to look like?!... The rendering basically amounts to a rough sketch.

[someone123]

Something needs to be done.

I am not sure what can be done other than allowing construction and investing public money in things like streetscaping or transit. Some of that stuff is already happening but I think there are some unavoidable temporary effects related to all the disruption that happens when buildings are redeveloped and streets are torn out.

The low point isn't when the development proposals come out, it's 2-3 years later when construction is in full swing and old tenants have been kicked out but new people and businesses haven't moved in yet. That is where Barrington is right now.

Another issue downtown (both SGR and Barrington) is that there aren't many good locations for anchor tenants. Downtown shopping would be more "full-service" if there were a Target and Future Shop or whatever but there is nowhere for those retailers to operate along the main streets. Some of the new developments might provide good spaces but I would say that none of them are quite perfect. The Citadel apartment building looks like it will have a great commercial space for example but it's a little far off the beaten path. I could see it becoming a Shoppers or something, but not a big clothing store. It will be interesting to see what happens. The Nova Centre will have a bunch of commercial spaces too -- I wonder what those will end up looking like? Mostly just restaurants, or is that the sort of development that's big enough to bring in new, major retailers? Will it be like a Scotia Square that "works" because it is better designed, or will it suffer from some of the same problems?

[ILoveHalifax]

I am not sure what can be done other than allowing construction and investing public money in things like streetscaping or transit. Some of that stuff is already happening but I think there are some unavoidable temporary effects related to all the disruption that happens when buildings are redeveloped and streets are torn out.

The low point isn't when the development proposals come out, it's 2-3 years later when construction is in full swing and old tenants have been kicked out but new people and businesses haven't moved in yet. That is where Barrington is right now.

Another issue downtown (both SGR and Barrington) is that there aren't many good locations for anchor tenants. Downtown shopping would be more "full-service" if there were a Target and Future Shop or whatever but there is nowhere for those retailers to operate along the main streets. Some of the new developments might provide good spaces but I would say that none of them are quite perfect. The Citadel apartment building looks like it will have a great commercial space for example but it's a little far off the beaten path. I could see it becoming a Shoppers or something, but not a big clothing store. It will be interesting to see what happens. The Nova Centre will have a bunch of commercial spaces too -- I wonder what those will end up looking like? Mostly just restaurants, or is that the sort of development that's big enough to bring in new, major retailers? Will it be like a Scotia Square that "works" because it is better designed, or will it suffer from some of the same problems?

I suppose there is not much that can be done, but we are not going to attract any majors without a big increase in residential. Southwest's building on the bank of Canada site is about the best hope and that is a few years away. The new building on the Citadel Hotel site should come on next year but again that is kind of on the fringe and there is not much on Barrington to get anybody to walk down the hill. I can see them walking to SGR. If the Roy is going condo, it needs to be built real soon and the old Zeller's building needs to get built. Possibly some residential in Nova Center would help.
This shows how the powers that be who have fought every hint of progress have really destroyed our downtown. What's left is a bunch of old rundown empty buildings. It is really embarrassing that any tourists would see our traditional main street.
So what would be the possibility of the city (council) granting a tax holiday for 5 or 10 years to any developer who put up a major residential development in the next couple of years. Maybe the city could provide some incentive to get things done real fast, including fast tracking the approval process. There is no streetscaping going on downtown.
SGR is not even looking good these days, far too many vacancies. Park Lane is now half empty, including street front. It will take more than Mary Ann to fix this street.
I suspect we will see gift stores (if anyone is dumb enough to open one) and restaurants in the new hotels. Not likely will any gift stores survive because there is just not enough locals to support said business'. With as many empty spaces as there is one would have to think long and hard before opening downtown.
Maybe we need to let in the sex shops in order to fill some of the empty spaces.
So to sum up the downtown is looking much worse than it was in the spring, and Someone, you are saying it will get worse before it gets better.

[someone123]

So to sum up the downtown is looking much worse than it was in the spring, and Someone, you are saying it will get worse before it gets better.

Yes, although I also think this is part of a larger, longer-term positive trend whereas back in the 90's or early 2000's there wasn't really much of a sign that things would get better. There is a big difference between an area that is empty because it is being redeveloped and an area that has been abandoned.

Two big missing pieces I still see are a lack of direction in terms of fixing downtown transit and truck traffic. I think a lot of people would consider the downtown area more liveable and accessible if the trucks were diverted onto the rail cut or a third bridge and some of the loud, slow diesel buses were replaced with a quieter, cleaner, faster, and more comfortable form of transit. Right now it is inconvenient for a lot of people to get downtown because there is limited parking, bad traffic, and limited transit.

The streetscaping needs to happen too. The renderings for the library and Queen Street look nice but that is a tiny fraction of what was originally planned, years behind schedule. The city has traditionally paid a lot of lip service to the downtown area but up until a few years ago invested incredibly little money into it, while effectively encouraging people to go to areas like Bayers Lake by subsidizing transportation improvements.

[fenwick16]

I think that the only thing that downtown Halifax needs is more residents living downtown. There are several residential proposals lined up. Hopefully developers will have the confidence to go forward with several of them.

[Nifta]

@someone123

"Limited parking downtown"

Really?! Half of downtown is, largely unused, parking lots. Just take a look at a satellite view of downtown. There's parking everywhere! None of the lots ever get even near halfway full!

[scooby074]

@someone123

"Limited parking downtown"

Really?! Half of downtown is, largely unused, parking lots. Just take a look at a satellite view of downtown. There's parking everywhere! None of the lots ever get even near halfway full!

What? You must never go near the waterfront. Short of the lots by Emera and Cunard Centre, all the others are generally full

[Waye Mason]

There are 4937 off street parking stalls within a 5 minute walk of Grand Parade. At lunch any given day there are 796 + or - 10% available stalls. 1380 from Cornwallis to casino to South Park. AT LUNCH.

Parking shortage my arse.

[scooby074]

Yeah yeah.,.. sure sure.
10% my ass. Lets say its true. There is one here and one there.. There are no real blocks of open parking where there are several free spots other than at Cunard and Emera.

Plus your covering a large physical area. Im talking about central waterfront parking AKA tourist parking.

How many of those supposed free spots were vacated by someone going for lunch? If so, it doesnt accurately represent the situation because those workers will return.

796 spaces.. why not 794 or 798? That number is BS.

[ILoveHalifax]

Yeah yeah.,.. sure sure.
10% my ass. Lets say its true. There is one here and one there.. There are no real blocks of open parking where there are several free spots other than at Cunard and Emera.

Plus your covering a large physical area. Im talking about central waterfront parking AKA tourist parking.

How many of those supposed 10% free spots were vacated by someone going for lunch? If so, 10% doesnt accurately represent the situation because those workers will return.

796 spaces.. why not 794 or 798? That number is BS.

Oh, I would not be questioning that number. You can be sure we paid some consultant $100,000.00 to do a study and come up with it.

[scooby074]

Oh, I would not be questioning that number. You can be sure we paid some consultant $100,000.00 to do a study and come up with it.

Likely:rolleyes:. Wouldnt surprise me.

It sounds like a number a consultant would come up with. Im surprised it wasnt something like "there are 796.7" free spaces at lunch"

By my seat-of-the-pants "consultant" I can say that number is butkus. God knows how much Ive driven around hunting for one of those "796" spots.

[pchipman]

796 spaces.. why not 794 or 798? That number is BS.

This is why the number was presented as 796 + or - 10%. It is not an absolute number, but an average with margin of error.

[scooby074]

This is why the number was presented as 796 + or - 10%. It is not an absolute number, but an average with margin of error.

A swing of 80 spots isnt really make or break now is it? On the high side 876 spots doesnt jive with what Ive seen nor does 716. The number of available spots is less than that, especially if you look at the immediate waterfront area. I question the 796 number regardless of margin of error.

Fact is there is limited parking in the most desired areas in the downtown waterfront area. And its only going to get worse if Cunard is developed. How many spots will be gone there, alot more than 80. 150?

Same goes for Salter.

[Waye Mason]

796 spaces.. why not 794 or 798? That number is BS.

That is the actual number of spots from survey in late March. The thing is that at lunch on street parking is full, and some Haligonians want to park in front of their downtown destination, and the amount of on street parking is finite and there is no way to increase it. I know that 900 off street parking spots are coming on stream in 3 years in addition to the 400+ convention centres spots at Nova Centre, off street is going to increase every year.

Basically, my advice is head straight to metropark and look there first, it has space 99% of the time.

[teddifax]

I had an appointment downtown 2 weeks ago and decided to take the car and park in Scotia Square - BIG mistake, the site is being worked on and open only to permit holders, I had to go over to Purdy's Wharf and got parking almost at the very top level. Parking is at a premium downtown. What would be nice if there was a parking app for all the parking lots in downtown Hfx. so one could see where the vacancies are. Anyone out there know of one?

[hoser111]

I had an appointment downtown 2 weeks ago and decided to take the car and park in Scotia Square - BIG mistake, the site is being worked on and open only to permit holders, I had to go over to Purdy's Wharf and got parking almost at the very top level. Parking is at a premium downtown. What would be nice if there was a parking app for all the parking lots in downtown Hfx. so one could see where the vacancies are. Anyone out there know of one?

Nope. Sounds like a candidate for the Open Data App contest though.

http://www.apps4halifax.ca/

[Nifta]

Roadsigns in Britain show where the spaces are in the parking lots as you approach the downtown area.

http://www.theroyalwindsorwebsite.com/images01/CarParks/images/28062012CarParkSignageError700.jpg

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=6736&type=full&servicetype=Inline&customSizeId=0

Bus stops also have electronic signs telling you how long until the next bus on each service is due to arrive.

Sigh, I miss these little things :)

[scooby074]

Parking is at a premium downtown. What would be nice if there was a parking app for all the parking lots in downtown Hfx. so one could see where the vacancies are. Anyone out there know of one?

Roadsigns in Britain show where the spaces are in the parking lots as you approach the downtown area.

http://www.theroyalwindsorwebsite.com/images01/CarParks/images/28062012CarParkSignageError700.jpg

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=6736&type=full&servicetype=Inline&customSizeId=0

Bus stops also have electronic signs telling you how long until the next bus on each service is due to arrive.

Sigh, I miss these little things :)

Now THAT would be a good thing.

Im pretty sure that the Pay and Display units "know" how many spots are free in their specific lot.

Metropark likely does too, heck the lot at the Airport does.

That leaves the meters. Mackay meters has the Guardian Solo that can be integrated with Streetline. Streetline is supposed to upload data like availability to the cloud and let parking authority know when a meter is expired. The Guardian units are also supposed to be retrofitable to the existing meter bases. http://www.mackaymeters.com/Products/SingleSpace/MacKayGuardianSOLO.aspx http://www.streetline.com/

Wouldnt this be a good thing?

[Keith P.]

That leaves the meters. Mackay meters has the Guardian Solo that can be integrated with Streetline. Streetline is supposed to upload data like availability to the cloud and let parking authority know when a meter is expired. The Guardian units are also supposed to be retrofitable to the existing meter bases. http://www.mackaymeters.com/Products/SingleSpace/MacKayGuardianSOLO.aspx http://www.streetline.com/

Wouldnt this be a good thing?

First thing that needs to be upgraded is the ability for the meters to accept electronic payment rather than demanding coins.

[scooby074]

First thing that needs to be upgraded is the ability for the meters to accept electronic payment rather than demanding coins.

By upgrading to the Mackay Guardians, you kill two birds with one stone, you get both epay and empty spot broadcasting to the web and/or signs.

[Waye Mason]

By upgrading to the Mackay Guardians, you kill two birds with one stone, you get both epay and empty spot broadcasting to the web and/or signs.

Pay by plate is probably going to replace metres within the next year, and that does take debit/credit.

There is talk of a parking app within six months. Spring Garden BID is the lead on that project.

All the owners of parking want to see utilization go up, because obviously having a 60% full garage weekdays and 10% evenings is not good business.

[teddifax]

Nope. Sounds like a candidate for the Open Data App contest though.

http://www.apps4halifax.ca/

Thanks, I have submitted it!

[Waye Mason]

This just in:

The Historic Roy Building to Become
First Luxury Residence In Halifax’s Barrington Street Heritage District

Halifax, NS (September 30, 2013) – By Fall of 2015, Halifax’s Heritage District will be further revitalized with The Roy, a new, contemporary, 22-storey, ultra luxury condominium located at 1650 Granville Street. The Roy Building on Barrington Street will be the site for this historic development by Starfish Properties and will feature the work of renowned architect Mansoor Kazerouni of Page + Steele IBI Group Architects, and elegant interior designs by UNION31.
Beginning construction Spring 2014, The Roy Building will be built in a manner consistent with its original character, while the residential tower rising above will be contemporary. The Roy will be the tallest structure in Halifax’s Heritage District.
“Born from the character, richness and complexity of Barrington Street, The Roy will be a true mixed-use development, that will enhance the vibrancy of downtown Halifax. The Roy will be distinguished as the residential address in Halifax, with all it’s suites built above the 7th floor enjoying protected views of the City or the Harbour,” say Architects Mansoor Kazerouni and Henry Burstyn.
The property developer, Louis Reznick of Starfish Properties, is especially excited about this unique project.
“The Roy, without a doubt, will be the jewel in the crown in Halifax’s Historic Downtown”, says Reznick. “Residents’ entitlements will include world-class hotel style amenities, executive concierge, porter services and cutting edge security. The Roy, with its forever protected views, unparalleled height and center ice location, will reign as the landmark address to call home in Halifax.”
UNION31, The Interior Design firm behind The Roy, will provide residents with stunning interiors that pay homage to Halifax’s turn of the century architecture and rich seaport history.
“We see the conversion of the Roy Building as a truly unique opportunity, a chance to create a residential development unlike anything else in the downtown core”, says Kelly Cray, Principal Creative at UNION31. “ Our vision incorporates memories of Halifax’s history in a contemporary and modern flavor, with finishes selected to reflect a relaxed and easygoing lifestyle - synonymous with living by the water.”
For more information on The Roy, visit the website www.TheRoyHalifax.com and follow along on Instagram @TheRoyHalifax.
-30-
Media Contact:
Hilary Alan
Hilary@deckagency.com
647.880.2966



Best Regards,
____________________________
HILARY ALLAN
PR & COMMUNICATIONS | DECK AGENCY

[mcmcclassic]

The rendering on the new site looks awesome! Also it appears that it'll be 22 stories (that's higher than before isn't it?)

[Drybrain]

Great to see movement, but it's a bit Orwellian to discuss the "conversion" of the "historic" building, since it's a demo and rebuild, not a conversion at all. Anyway, good to see. Hopefully they salvage some old material and really do it up properly. (I've been watching, over the past few weeks, a project in Toronto where they basically dismantled an entire building, brick by brick, and rebuilt it around a new steel frame a block away, to serve as a tower podium. Wonder if that's feasible here. Some of the masonry is in rough shape, I guess.)

Heritage-haters take note: Reznick's press release spills a lot of ink on the attractiveness of being in the "historic downtown" and enjoying "protected views." So Starfish is definitely leveraging heritage as a selling feature.

[someone123]

Here's the rendering from the website:

http://theroyhalifax.com/m/images/sample/screen4.jpg

[q12]

^This is fantastic for downtown. :tup:

Developers want Roy Building on Barrington Street to become 22-storey ‘luxury condominium’

September 30, 2013 Updated: September 30, 2013 | 12:22 pm

By Staff
Metro Halifax

http://metronewsca.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/theroy.jpg?w=618&h=408&crop=1
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/810224/roy-building-on-barrington-street-in-halifax-to-become-22-storey-luxury-condominium/#

The historic Roy Building on Barrington Street in downtown Halifax will be remade as a 22-storey “luxury condominium,” according to a release issued on Monday.

Construction is set to begin in the spring of 2014, with developer Louis Reznick of Starfish Properties and architects Mansoor Kazerouni and Henry Burstyn on board.

“The Roy, without a doubt, will be the jewel in the crown in Halifax’s historic downtown”, said Reznick in the release. “Residents’ entitlements will include world-class hotel style amenities, executive concierge, porter services and cutting edge security.”

Read more here: http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/810224/roy-building-on-barrington-street-in-halifax-to-become-22-storey-luxury-condominium/#

[OldDartmouthMark]

Sounds promising! :tup:

[teddifax]

I really like this one!

[Empire]

Here's the rendering from the website:

http://theroyhalifax.com/m/images/sample/screen4.jpg

Looks better except for the cheap concrete cladding at street level and the south end.

[teddifax]

Looks better except for the cheap concrete cladding at street level and the south end.

I believe that is to keep the Vogue Optical building look intact, although I wonder why they deem that really necessary and why not keep the whole block the same design.

[teddifax]

Can this please be changed to reflect the new height as well.

[fenwick16]

Here's the rendering from the website:

http://theroyhalifax.com/m/images/sample/screen4.jpg


Fantastic design! :)

In addition to the attractive design, it is noteworthy that the Roy Building facade will remain as 6 storeys instead of becoming 5 storeys as in the previous design.

[fenwick16]

Can this please be changed to reflect the new height as well.

I think that the height is probably still the same but now instead of an office tower it will be a residential tower, so more floors can be built within the same building height.

The initial development agreement stated that it could be office or residential - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/Dist12PAC/documents/RoyBuildingReport.pdf. It lists the height as 234 feet above Barrington Street and 250 feet above Granville (including the penthouse).

[Keith P.]

The new parts look great.

The Roy/Vogue base looks ridiculous and really detracts from the new look. It should just be removed entirely. Neither building is particularly memorable.

[ILoveHalifax]

This looks much better than previous drawings (could not have gotten any worse) but still not a very attractive building.
I would much prefer they implode the whole thing and start from scratch. Can't they afford some architects to design something new and exciting?

[Hali87]

Looks a lot better than I expected, and I think the (recreated) Roy and Vogue facades anchor the tower really well.

I'm a bit surprised/disappointed that they don't mention any retail at grade, although based on the rendering it looks like there might be?

[Keith P.]

Looks a lot better than I expected, and I think the (recreated) Roy and Vogue facades anchor the tower really well.

I'm a bit surprised/disappointed that they don't mention any retail at grade, although based on the rendering it looks like there might be?

There is retail at grade now. Except for Vogue Optical, it is all vacant.

The inclusion of the Vogue building in the facadism is truly absurd. Look at the rendering - they are even replicating the 2-storey addition from the 1960s with its discordant windows and awkward transition to the original structure! How does that make even a bit of sense?

[Hali87]

Didn't they kick out the tenants a while ago in anticipation of the redevelopment though? Or am I thinking of a different building?

I think the inclusion of the upper part of the Vogue building adds visual interest and for lack of a better term, ties the corner of the building together. It's not a masterpiece or anything, but I think it works well. I also like the popped-up roofline, squares everything off nicely.

[Drybrain]

There is retail at grade now. Except for Vogue Optical, it is all vacant.

The inclusion of the Vogue building in the facadism is truly absurd. Look at the rendering - they are even replicating the 2-storey addition from the 1960s with its discordant windows and awkward transition to the original structure! How does that make even a bit of sense?

I don't imagine they're demolishing Vogue though? So they're probably just leaving it as-is instead of demolishing (agree that if it's a replication, including the 1960s addition would be bizarre). But they didn't acquire the Vogue building until recently, so the demolition permit they were issued wouldn't have included that property. Note that the tower doesn't extend over that building, which leads me to believe it'll be left fully intact.

It'd probably be nice if they knocked off the addition though, and restored the roofline to whatever it once was.

[fenwick16]

By buying the Vogue Optical building, Starfish eliminated two interior lot lines next to the Roy Building (the two interior sides of the Vogue Optical). According to the Downtown Halifax Land Use Bylaw they would have been required to have 11.5 meter minimum setbacks above 33.5 meters for both interior lot lines - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/DowntownHalifax_LUB.pdf . So even though they aren't building above the Vogue Optical they still gain a significant amount of square footage in the Roy tower.

If Starfish were to tear down the Vogue Optical they would probably have to abide by the 22 meter limit since the Vogue lot wasn't grandfathered in. It seems as though there isn't a big incentive to tear it down. Personally, I am glad that they will keep it intact.

[spaustin]

The redesign looks a lot better than the earlier renderings. There was way too much brick in the earlier design. This one is much more crisp and allows the old and the new to stand clearly apart. Now if they were actually keeping the Roy facade, I could get really enthusiastic about this one.

[teddifax]

from the CH Tuesday's edition:

Roy Building plans get makeover
4 hours ago
By ROGER TAYLOR BUSINESS COLUMNIST


















.



.
The creaky old stairs of the well-worn Roy Building on Barrington Street will soon be a thing of the past.

The owner of the historic building in downtown Halifax has plans to gut the inside to make way for a mixed-use 22-storey development. The facade of the structure will be left for old times’ sake to remain in keeping with the district.

Toronto developer Louis Reznick, through his company Starfish Properties, owns a number of properties in Halifax’s downtown and has had different plans for the Roy Building over the years. But Monday’s news was a bit of a change of pace compared to previous ideas.

Nothing was mentioned in the news release of Reznick’s plan, approved by regional council in 2011, to demolish the building and replace it with a $40-million, 17-storey structure.

The plan calls for the main floor at the Barrington Street level to be offered as “large format” space required by major retailers. Then, beginning on the building’s eighth floor, it will become a luxury residential condominium aimed at the well-to-do interested in care-free living downtown.

Reznick was reported to be travelling in India on Monday and wasn’t available for comment.

But he is planning to offer condo residents luxury hotel-style amenities, such as a concierge, porter services and high-end security. Condo owners at the Roy, as it will be called, will be offered a discrete entrance on the Granville Street side of the building, we are told.

The price tags for the redevelopment and the condos have not been released, but construction is to begin by next spring with completion expected to be in late 2015, around the same time the one-million-square-foot Nova Centre, located just around the corner, is expected to be completed.

Reznick has hired Toronto architects Mansoor Kazerouni and Henry Burstyn to design the structure to replace the Roy Building. I couldn’t reach Kazerouni on Monday, but he was quoted in a news release as stating the building “will be a true mixed-use development that will enhance the vibrancy of downtown Halifax.”

Perhaps the creaky stairs will remain, but I doubt it.

The architect says the structure will be rebuilt “in a manner consistent with its original character; the residential development above will be contemporary in its expression, facilitating an integration of history and modernity.”

Kazerouni indicated in the release that the “sculpted white glass spine with stairs at either end will anchor two contrasting building blocks that will define this development.”

A metal grid will be the feature of the west-facing block, which will include a long enclosed balcony with views of Citadel Hill. The east-facing block will be clad in glass, with continuous balconies that allow the developer to boast of “protected views” of Halifax Harbour.

Earlier this year, Reznick acquired the six-storey Vogue Building, which is next door to the Roy Building. While there is no word on what will happen to the Vogue, two smaller properties owned by Reznick behind the building, at 5181 and 5187 Sackville Street, are scheduled to be demolished as part of the Roy Building redevelopment.

The Roy Building is directly across the street from Reznick’s Barrington Espace project, the redevelopment of the former Sam the Record Man building that is underway.

Meanwhile, there will be plenty of competition for the high-end apartment dweller in the downtown area. Killam Properties Inc. is proposing a $25-million, 20-storey residential tower in the Spring Garden Road area.

Southwest Properties Ltd. is preparing to soon raze the Bank of Canada building in Halifax to replace it with a 21-storey mixed-use building that could accommodate nearly 500 people in about 300 apartment units. It will have three levels of underground parking, about 15,000 square feet of commercial space and 6,000 square feet of open public space.

Southwest is also involved with the province’s Waterfront Development Corp. Ltd. and Minett Real Estate Services in the $75-million mixed-use development of the Cunard block on the Halifax waterfront. The plan calls for a 16-storey tower, 250 apartment units and commercial and public space.

The city’s urban core will be a big construction site for the next couple of years. But if everything goes right, the influx of new residents should turn the district from ghost town to vibrant downtown once again.

[Aya_Akai]

I absolutely love this in it's current form.. I hope they don't do anything to it. This, with the Discovery Centre building and Bank Of Canada a block and a half away is going to be a gorgeous area when everything is all said and done. I really REALLY like how this is going to look with the BoC building nearby..

[someone123]

It remains to be seen how the reconstructed Roy part will turn out, and I wasn't so sure about this as an office proposal, but with this new design the balance seems to have shifted well into positive territory.

I think the difference in the Barrington and Sackville area over the next few years is going to be like night and day. The new residents are really what the area needs.

Didn't they kick out the tenants a while ago in anticipation of the redevelopment though? Or am I thinking of a different building?

Yes. I think Reznick may even have stated to the media that he regretted doing it so early and then having to wait for approval. The current state of Barrington Street is fairly artificial; if it weren't for these developments, I think it would still be a little troubled but it wouldn't actually have a significant number of retail vacancies. That makes me pretty hopeful for what the street will be like if thousands of new people move into the neighbourhood. The Nova Centre could also be a pretty nice complement to Barrington Street.

[halifaxboyns]

It remains to be seen how the reconstructed Roy part will turn out, and I wasn't so sure about this as an office proposal, but with this new design the balance seems to have shifted well into positive territory.

I think the difference in the Barrington and Sackville area over the next few years is going to be like night and day. The new residents are really what the area needs.


I have to agree with you here - I wasn't terribly happy this was office, but the new proposal is really interesting and I like the design. Not so sure about the vogue optical part, but overall - the checks are outweighing the negatives on the Vogue building.

The fact that this will contain a 'large format' retail does concern me somewhat, but I would hope that this might finally attract something like the bay or perhaps (probably a long shot) Holt (which had been long rumored). I would even be happy with an urban target, as the one in Chicago is quite impressive. My only concern is that if a walmart ends up going in there - it may hurt the downtown commercial more than help.

[someone123]

I think Barrington needs some large anchor retailers more than just about anything else. From the perspective of convenience for people living downtown, Target would be huge. They sell a lot of stuff that would be very expensive or hard to find downtown right now. Even Spring Garden Road has a lot of holes in its offerings.

I can imagine a lot of this stuff changing very quickly (just as it can fall apart quickly) because if the downtown area picks up enough momentum then it will again become a big regional shopping destination. Right now there are some nice stores but as a utilitarian destination it doesn't stack up very well with the malls or big box stores, so most people pass it up.

I'm also hoping the added population will create a bit more impetus for improving downtown transit. If Halifax had about 10,000 more people living downtown and some streetcars or LRT it would be a great town.

[counterfactual]

I have to agree with you here - I wasn't terribly happy this was office, but the new proposal is really interesting and I like the design. Not so sure about the vogue optical part, but overall - the checks are outweighing the negatives on the Vogue building.

The fact that this will contain a 'large format' retail does concern me somewhat, but I would hope that this might finally attract something like the bay or perhaps (probably a long shot) Holt (which had been long rumored). I would even be happy with an urban target, as the one in Chicago is quite impressive. My only concern is that if a walmart ends up going in there - it may hurt the downtown commercial more than help.

I can't see Walmart moving in there; it's just not their style or business model; for one, the rent would be too expensive.

I've read some old interviews with Reznick, and I think he envisioned more "lifestyle" retail places, where people linger, eat, gather, etc, and of course buy. Like a Chapters or urban home furnishing, like Pottery Barn.

Here's a great old interview with Reznick that gives some shape to his ideas and vision (even though he doesn't claim to have a "vision").

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/04/27/coast-exclusive-interview-with-louis-reznick

There's some great stuff there about Reznick really understanding that you need major urban density developments, not just a few new apartments here and there. Completely agree.

Interestingly, he suggests in there that Roy wouldn't work as residential.

I'm glad he's reconsidered.

[counterfactual]

I think Barrington needs some large anchor retailers more than just about anything else. From the perspective of convenience for people living downtown, Target would be huge. They sell a lot of stuff that would be very expensive or hard to find downtown right now. Even Spring Garden Road has a lot of holes in its offerings.

I can imagine a lot of this stuff changing very quickly (just as it can fall apart quickly) because if the downtown area picks up enough momentum then it will again become a big regional shopping destination. Right now there are some nice stores but as a utilitarian destination it doesn't stack up very well with the malls or big box stores, so most people pass it up.

I'm also hoping the added population will create a bit more impetus for improving downtown transit. If Halifax had about 10,000 more people living downtown and some streetcars or LRT it would be a great town.

Completely agree (see my post above about Reznick's vision for anchor tenants).

I always envisioned an Apple Store as being a fantastic anchor tenant on Barrington, designed in the style of the one in downtown London, which is beautiful inside and out.

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/europe/uk/england/london/west/london-w1/regent-street/apple-store-london/apple-store-london.jpg

http://images.apple.com/uk/retail/store/galleries/coventgarden/images/coventgarden_gallery_image4.jpg

I could easily see something like that on Barrington, with the Roy Building facade fronting the store.

We could even call it "world class", and make Tim Bousquet's head explode.

[halifaxboyns]

Apple could be good. Anything like Pottery Barn, Chapters or even a Holt would do well once the population increased.

[haligonia]

I think something like an Urban Outfitters or H&M could work well on Barrington, in a space like this one or the almost completed eSpace storefronts.

[Waye Mason]

I believe that is to keep the Vogue Optical building look intact, although I wonder why they deem that really necessary and why not keep the whole block the same design.

Vogue is not included in the original DA so is protect by HRMbyDesign and the Heritage Conservation District. So Louis is renovating it. Keeps the varied palate of historical buildings intact, I think the project is better for it.

[Waye Mason]

There is retail at grade now. Except for Vogue Optical, it is all vacant.

Vacant by choice, Starfish wouldn't rent it because of impending demo.... which might have been a bad choice since they could have had 3-4 years rent while we got to this point.

I think something like an Urban Outfitters or H&M could work well on Barrington, in a space like this one or the almost completed eSpace storefronts.

There is actually considerable demand for 9000-20000 sf retail on Barrington and Spring Garden, and a lot of them are people like H&M, Urban Outfitters, that want multi-story retail, so you can see in the Roy rendering the retail is first and second floor.

[counterfactual]

There is actually considerable demand for 9000-20000 sf retail on Barrington and Spring Garden, and a lot of them are people like H&M, Urban Outfitters, that want multi-story retail, so you can see in the Roy rendering the retail is first and second floor.

If this is true, for God sakes, would somebody get the damn shovels in the dirt to get things moving, to make it happen?

Do you think they'd be interested in retail space in Barrington E-space? Images suggest it could support multi story retail.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/Sams_building_4web.jpg

As an aside, I don't understand why no one has moved into HMV's old space on Spring Garden. Too big or too small for any of those retailers?

[RyeJay]

If the development were to turn out just as the new rendering shows, then I wouldn't change a thing. I think 'The Roy' looks marvellous!

[scooby074]

Considering this is a Starfish property, how long until the "Roy Bulilding" sign is whitewashed (chipped away?) and some other name is considered, while the city turns a blind eye? "Historic" building and all that! We all know how Starfish respects history in practice, regardless of what their PR says:rolleyes:

/That said, the Morse restore was decent, in all honesty, but their lack of respect for the sign should be noted.



The Roy project looks decent, but again, is another prime example of facadism.

[counterfactual]

Considering this is a Starfish property, how long until the "Roy Bulilding" sign is whitewashed (chipped away?) and some other name is considered, while the city turns a blind eye? "Historic" building and all that! We all know how Starfish respects history in practice, regardless of what their PR says:rolleyes:

/That said, the Morse restore was decent, in all honesty, but their lack of respect for the sign should be noted.



The Roy project looks decent, but again, is another prime example of facadism.

Just because something only uses a "facade" doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Depends on the context and the building. As someone said elsewhere on this Forum, if there is worthwhile heritage to preserve inside a building, then facadism may be a problem (but not always). However, the Roy building is pretty run down and crappy inside, creaky stairs and all.

I think if Barrington has any hopes of revitalization, we do need some larger commercial/retail space, and a new space-- with a Roy facade-- could be it.

[Empire]

Just because something only uses a "facade" doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Depends on the context and the building. As someone said elsewhere on this Forum, if there is worthwhile heritage to preserve inside a building, then facadism may be a problem (but not always). However, the Roy building is pretty run down and crappy inside, creaky stairs and all.

I think if Barrington has any hopes of revitalization, we do need some larger commercial/retail space, and a new space-- with a Roy facade-- could be it.


An example of good facidism is Founders Square. The key here is an intact corner building. The Vouge building will serve a similar visual purpose in the Roy development.

Founders
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.64762,-63.572838&spn=0.000015,0.016512&sll=43.961191,-63.237305&sspn=27.745689,67.631836&t=h&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+Regional+Municipality,+Nova+Scotia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.647712,-63.572882&panoid=yIyPxz0Aah3_o3Rmkz3xXw&cbp=12,118.61,,0,-22.5

[Drybrain]

The success of a facadism project really depends on the quality of the architecture (I guess that's obvious). The bad examples end up completely disgracing the original and eliminating any "historic" feel.

Like this. (http://goo.gl/maps/lkOIH)

Or even worse, this. (http://goo.gl/maps/yqxZQ)


Founders Square is so much better because the tower doesn't overpower the old buildings. It's set back somewhat. Though the big folly with Founders Square is that it's purely aesthetic--they didn't retain the individual storefronts except as entrances to the main complex. Preserving the illusion of individual buildings along the street level, and having actual businesses in them, could have made that stretch a bit more flexible and inviting to pedestrians.

[MonctonRad]

The big folly with Founders Square is that it's purely aesthetic--they didn't retain the individual storefronts except as entrances to the main complex. Preserving the illusion of individual buildings along the street level, and having actual businesses in them, could have made that stretch a bit more flexible and inviting to pedestrians.

Here Here!

Very well put. The Founder's Square project is generally a very good one, but the preserved facade is very sterile exactly for the reasons you have stated. It is essentially a blank wall with windows.

If they had really wanted to keep the streetscape vibrant, they should have encouraged street level retail behind the facade.

Of course, Founder's Square was a project of the 1980's. Hopefully they wouldn't repeat this mistake in the 2010's.......

[scooby074]

Just because something only uses a "facade" doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Depends on the context and the building. As someone said elsewhere on this Forum, if there is worthwhile heritage to preserve inside a building, then facadism may be a problem (but not always). However, the Roy building is pretty run down and crappy inside, creaky stairs and all.

I think if Barrington has any hopes of revitalization, we do need some larger commercial/retail space, and a new space-- with a Roy facade-- could be it.

I generally agree with that. Sometimes a place is too far gone to save (Roy?) and /or has limited architectural value inside. Saving the facade is better than nothing.

However how that facade is integrated into the (usually) larger, new building being built "inside" is important.

As mentioned above, having a blank, sterile block of windows doesnt really do much to integrate the new "old" facade into the community. Ground floor retail / restaurants seem to make the building welcoming.

[scooby074]

Or even worse, this. (http://goo.gl/maps/yqxZQ)

.

OMG, that's awful! I mean, why even bother????

[Keith P.]

OMG, that's awful! I mean, why even bother????

Because "Friends of" historic preservation nutbars insist on this sort of thing.

[counterfactual]

OMG, that's awful! I mean, why even bother????

I know that development. The facade really wasn't the importance of the original building; the little building was an art studio.

FWIW, that was also a crappy parking lot until that condo was put in place.

That's a weird kind of preservation, but, I mean, at least we're here talking about the thing. So it preserves at least the memory of what is or was there at some point. It could have been completely obliterated.

Preserving a facade, to me, is often about preserving the memory of what was there. People, I think, underestimate that value.

[scooby074]

Because "Friends of" historic preservation nutbars insist on this sort of thing.

The implementation of "historic preservation" on that building is particularly ridiculous.

Nutbars or not, how could anybody look at that mess and think "Gee, they did a great job of saving and integrating this building into a new structure".

It's a waste of the old building and ruins the new one.:shrug:

[Empire]

I generally agree with that. Sometimes a place is too far gone to save (Roy?) and /or has limited architectural value inside. Saving the facade is better than nothing.


This goes one step further in that the façade is not saved but recreated. I would like to see some lost Halifax architecture recreated. Maybe some new towers could bring back the original streetscape. The Tex Park site would be a good site to recreate a streetscape similar to the Founders Square facades using a mix of lost buildings. We can call the style "Halifax Revival".

I would also throw in density bonusing for significant historic inclusion / recreation

[Keith P.]

This goes one step further in that the façade is not saved but recreated. I would like to see some lost Halifax architecture recreated. Maybe some new towers could bring back the original streetscape. The Tex Park site would be a good site to recreate a streetscape similar to the Founders Square facades using a mix of lost buildings. We can call the style "Halifax Revival".

I would also throw in density bonusing for significant historic inclusion / recreation

We don't need any more faux-Victorian architecture in this town, thanks. We already have far too many styrofoam cornices on ugly red-brick stubby boxes.

[Drybrain]

We don't need any more faux-Victorian architecture in this town, thanks. We already have far too many styrofoam cornices on ugly red-brick stubby boxes.

Oh man, I agree with you on that, at least.

But I actually think historical re-building, if done sparingly (i.e., not making the city into some historical Disneyland) is entirely valid. Why not correct our mistakes?

This Victorian fire hall in Toronto (http://tayloronhistory.com/2013/02/14/torontos-architectural-gems-bellevue-fire-station/) was partly rebuilt following (ironically) a fire in the 70s. On a grander scale, the Alberta Hotel in Edmonton, demolished in the 70s, was recently rebuilt (http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04/23/2o13-o4-19-the-rebirth-of-the-alberta-hotel-bar/) on the city's main downtown street, Jasper Avenue. Some of the materials used were warehoused stone and bricks from the original, but a lot of the materials were brand new, and the quality of the bricklaying and finishing is really fantastic. It looks old, not faux at all.

And on the very, very grand end, Dresden's Frauenkirche church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche), destroyed in World War II, was rebuilt after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Work finished in 2005.

It's a pipe dream, but boy, I wouldn't object if someone suggested rebuilding Halifax's lost Customs House (http://digitalcollections.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/bitstream/handle/10960/292/WM%20HPL-PC-F0055.jpg?sequence=1) near its original location, as part a larger waterfront redevelopment.

[Jonovision]

It's a pipe dream, but boy, I wouldn't object if someone suggested rebuilding Halifax's lost Customs House (http://digitalcollections.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/bitstream/handle/10960/292/WM%20HPL-PC-F0055.jpg?sequence=1) near its original location, as part a larger waterfront redevelopment.

Please please please please!

[scooby074]

This goes one step further in that the façade is not saved but recreated. I would like to see some lost Halifax architecture recreated. Maybe some new towers could bring back the original streetscape. The Tex Park site would be a good site to recreate a streetscape similar to the Founders Square facades using a mix of lost buildings. We can call the style "Halifax Revival".

I would also throw in density bonusing for significant historic inclusion / recreation

Not a bad idea, so long as it was built with historic materials, like Keith said, no more foam cornices or faux Victorian.

Customs house would be nice on the waterfront. Particularly if the clock dome was some how open to the public. It would almost be a bookend to the dome at the casino

[fenwick16]

I can't believe that there are people who actually have such viewpoints as this Halifax Media Co-Ed writer - http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/omri/19104. I guess it would be better for people with money to live in the suburbs?

[Keith P.]

The Halifax Media Co-op is a bunch of extreme left-wingers, most of them clueless kids, who spout off on various topics about which they know little or nothing.

[mcmcclassic]

That article keeps referring to the 1% getting to live downtown... I'm sorry super left hippies, I'd rather have wealthy people living in a beautiful tower downtown than having yet another derelict building grace our main "heritage" street.

I'm not wealthy nor do I come from wealth, but I do have respect for those who do have money (and aren't dicks about it). Why is it a crime to be rich? :2cents:

[ILoveHalifax]

Holding the St Pat's deal as any kind of accomplishment indicates a very wild imagination.
I walked by there this summer; it's a very large building. I wonder how any not for profit could possibly upkeep the place or even use all the space.
Council was so right to have sold it to a developer.

[teddifax]

Holding the St Pat's deal as any kind of accomplishment indicates a very wild imagination.
I walked by there this summer; it's a very large building. I wonder how any not for profit could possibly upkeep the place or even use all the space.
Council was so right to have sold it to a developer.

Too bad that was undone!

[Empire]

Oh man, I agree with you on that, at least.

But I actually think historical re-building, if done sparingly (i.e., not making the city into some historical Disneyland) is entirely valid. Why not correct our mistakes?

This Victorian fire hall in Toronto (http://tayloronhistory.com/2013/02/14/torontos-architectural-gems-bellevue-fire-station/) was partly rebuilt following (ironically) a fire in the 70s. On a grander scale, the Alberta Hotel in Edmonton, demolished in the 70s, was recently rebuilt (http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04/23/2o13-o4-19-the-rebirth-of-the-alberta-hotel-bar/) on the city's main downtown street, Jasper Avenue. Some of the materials used were warehoused stone and bricks from the original, but a lot of the materials were brand new, and the quality of the bricklaying and finishing is really fantastic. It looks old, not faux at all.

And on the very, very grand end, Dresden's Frauenkirche church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche), destroyed in World War II, was rebuilt after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Work finished in 2005.

It's a pipe dream, but boy, I wouldn't object if someone suggested rebuilding Halifax's lost Customs House (http://digitalcollections.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/bitstream/handle/10960/292/WM%20HPL-PC-F0055.jpg?sequence=1) near its original location, as part a larger waterfront redevelopment.

The Customs House was one in particular that I was thinking of. Halifax has made many mistakes in the form of lost architecture. Today we are making more mistakes by allowing poorly designed buildings with economical materials to be built.

There is nothing faux about resurrecting our own architecture. More emphasis needs to be put on quality and it is a subject that hardly gets mentioned. Look at the lengths that other cities go to preserve architecture. In Montreal, Cathedral Place (KPMG) involved suspending an entire cathedral on steel beams while a subway station and shops were built underneath. Then an office tower was integrated.

St. George's round church on Brunswick St. was reconstructed after being 75% destroyed by fire so it can be done with the right initiative.

(KPMG) Cathedral Place Montreal
https://www.google.ca/search?q=kpmg+building+montreal&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=fLtOUqHCLofxqQGboIGwAQ&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1108&bih=677&dpr=1


St. George's round church on Brunswick
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Halifax,+NS&hl=en&ll=44.653192,-63.582746&spn=0.000008,0.0039&sll=44.004261,-62.918551&sspn=9.780234,15.974121&oq=hal&t=h&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+Regional+Municipality,+Nova+Scotia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.65325,-63.582658&panoid=dtCHcQO7_71jFiROWiTPDA&cbp=12,326.01,,0,0

[Ziobrop]

Holding the St Pat's deal as any kind of accomplishment indicates a very wild imagination.
I walked by there this summer; it's a very large building. I wonder how any not for profit could possibly upkeep the place or even use all the space.
Council was so right to have sold it to a developer.

The St. Pat's Alexandra School Building Condition Assessment prepared for HRM Available at http://www.halifax.ca/shapeyourcity/StPatricksAlexandrasite.html indicates millions in work to make the buildings habitable again. The Reverend Rhonda Britton was quoted as saying that she didn't think all that work needed to be done See the Coast Article (http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2013/08/29/condition-of-former-st-pats-alexandra-school-is-debated)

Lets remember that the school board (who in general are notorious for deferring maintenance) decided the buildings needed complete replacement, and built a new school. also uninhabited buildings rot. they are minimally heated, and don't receive any maintenance. For her to expect to run programs out of it, and not put up significant cash to deal with basic environmental concerns is absurd. the last thing that neighborhood needs is a rotting school on a giant unkempt lot.

the community groups should determine her programming requirements, and take those to the city. the city should then sell the land, below market value, on the condition that those programming requirements are met in what ever is built, and turned over to the community groups to operate and maintain.

[RyeJay]

I'm not wealthy nor do I come from wealth, but I do have respect for those who do have money (and aren't dicks about it). Why is it a crime to be rich? :2cents:

You don't have to have money to be a dick.

Criminality of the 1%? It's a crime when anyone (not just the 1%) doesn't pay their fair share in taxes. The super rich have more options to get away with it.

For income earners not inside that bubble of growing wealth in which very few people exist -- wages are not increasing enough with productivity or inflation. Capital is being monopolised upward, and I consider that to be criminal. There is an insufficient level of redistribution and pay equity, which should concern us deeply if we wish to sustain our consumer-dependent system of capitalism.

As far as downtown living goes, the majority of the population is being priced out of the market. How is Halifax to adequately curb urban sprawl if a majority of people cannot afford to live centrally?

There are plenty of minimum wage jobs located in the downtown. It would be less burdensome on the city's transit system if at least *some* of those wage slaves could reside near their job.

The city needs to continue this debate, and resist the urge to bring the conversation to stereotyping of "left-wingers" and "right-wingers". No one has a monopoly on the facts; in fact, we aren't at all entitled to our own. We should be seeking evidence to support our proposals and acting on the most rational conclusions.

I support The Roy even if it is intended for the 1%. If there is demand for it -- then build! I only hope the end result is as striking as the rendering.

The most intact strip of Halifax Heritage properties, which are the city blocks spanning from City Hall to the Cathedral on Spring Garden (I think), is soon going to find itself in the middle of some form of urban canyon.
Modern towers (except for the Cathedral) will border these older (and much shorter) buildings, which may actually help us be more appreciative of the heritage we have intact. I'm looking forward to what this contrast of age and height will create.

[Drybrain]

The St. Pat's Alexandra School Building Condition Assessment prepared for HRM Available at http://www.halifax.ca/shapeyourcity/StPatricksAlexandrasite.html indicates millions in work to make the buildings habitable again. The Reverend Rhonda Britton was quoted as saying that she didn't think all that work needed to be done See the Coast Article (http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2013/08/29/condition-of-former-st-pats-alexandra-school-is-debated)


I think there were concerns about that assessment being somewhat biased in favour of demolition, but I don't really know enough about the issue to weigh in, besides that it's a boondoggle. I do wish the Victorian portion of the school could be saved.

[Drybrain]

The Halifax Media Co-op is a bunch of extreme left-wingers, most of them clueless kids, who spout off on various topics about which they know little or nothing.

Wow, I agree with Keith two posts in a row. There's a bunch of media co-ops around the country, and they're all basically the same--slogans, conspiracy theories, and "screw the rich" sentiment. I have concerns over gentrification too, but let's be real--a major downtown thoroughfare can afford to put on a little ritz. I love the mixed-up nature of the north end, but Barrington is not Gottingen.

[beyeas]

Criminality of the 1%? It's a crime when anyone (not just the 1%) doesn't pay their fair share in taxes.

Even that I have a problem with. Blame the lawmakers if you want, but if someone utilizes tax avoidance methods that are legally available, then what is the issue? You can disagree with the laws, or lack thereof, that allowed them to do so, but I disagree with saying it is a crime when someone only pays the amount of taxes that they had to within the law (rich or otherwise).

[RyeJay]

Blame the lawmakers if you want

I certainly do.

but if someone utilizes tax avoidance methods that are legally available, then what is the issue? You can disagree with the laws, or lack thereof, that allowed them to do so, but I disagree with saying it is a crime when someone only pays the amount of taxes that they had to within the law (rich or otherwise).

Ethically, this could evolve into quite a different conversation. The crime is when illegal tax evasion methods are used, and there is plenty of activity in that market.

[Ziobrop]

Even that I have a problem with. Blame the lawmakers if you want, but if someone utilizes tax avoidance methods that are legally available, then what is the issue? You can disagree with the laws, or lack thereof, that allowed them to do so, but I disagree with saying it is a crime when someone only pays the amount of taxes that they had to within the law (rich or otherwise).

The Paper tax documentation from CRA Has a few lines on the back cover that states (Paraphrased) "these are the rules, You must follow the rules, you can follow them to your advantage"


More on Topic, I noticed today that the Roy has had its art installations removed, and The Roy patterned paper put up over it.

[Nilan8888]

Ethically, this could evolve into quite a different conversation. The crime is when illegal tax evasion methods are used, and there is plenty of activity in that market.

Agreed -- it's a matter of ethics.

Look, it's just common sense that as cities grow, the more land costs within the city core. That the "super-rich" can only live there is a bit of a misnomer, at least for Halifax, because it would imply that very few of Halifax's own residents could live in its downtown. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a demand to even create buildings like this. So the only logical conclusion would be either that affluent people are immigrating right into Halifax from elsewhere to live downtown, or that the 'super-rich' of the city isn't really an accurate term.

I mean cripes, they still have the entire South End. And Bedford.

But all that said, I think there's an ethical case for more affluent people trying to save all the money they can through legal means. I mean, this increases as you go up -- if someone's struggling to pay the bills on their home, those people need those tax advantages. If you already own several homes... well the sense of civic responsibility should be larger.

We might not have barbarians at the gate and we might not be an Empire, but isn't one of the commonly agreed assertions for the fall of Rome was the decline of 'civic virtue'?

[RyeJay]

Agreed -- it's a matter of ethics.

Look, it's just common sense that as cities grow, the more land costs within the city core. That the "super-rich" can only live there is a bit of a misnomer, at least for Halifax, because it would imply that very few of Halifax's own residents could live in its downtown. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a demand to even create buildings like this. So the only logical conclusion would be either that affluent people are immigrating right into Halifax from elsewhere to live downtown, or that the 'super-rich' of the city isn't really an accurate term.

I don't know what has sparked this response from you. I support the Roy, and I support rich people moving into this tower and many other developments like it....whether the 1% or 'affluent' individuals are the exclusive class demographics to which these projects are marketed.

Since I appreciate capitalism, I appreciate the rich. The system needs investors, after all. Something I was alluding was that the gap between the richest of the rich and the former 'middle-class' is widening. This is having an obvious impact on residential markets. Lower-income people are being forced to move further away from the core despite the central location of their employment.

Yes, as density increases, so does the land value.

What is common sense for some municipalities is to at least partly subsidise core/urbanised regions in order to enable some of these lower-income labourers to reside near their jobs. This impacts traffic, healthcare costs, the environment, and so on.

In a *completely* free-market approach, there is a potential for slums eventually. We do not at all wish for communism as a solution; we need something in between.

Whether or not we like it, wages are stagnant. Compared to the rising costs of living, no one can argue against this. Many, many more people are earning much, much less -- and we are going to have to address this at some point.

But all that said, I think there's an ethical case for more affluent people trying to save all the money they can through legal means. I mean, this increases as you go up -- if someone's struggling to pay the bills on their home, those people need those tax advantages. If you already own several homes... well the sense of civic responsibility should be larger.

Your sense of civic responsibility is on the verge of contradicting your apparent ethical case for affluent people trying to save all the money they can through legal means.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's ethical.

We should be focusing on what is sustainable, and framing what should be legal in those terms. We need to be specific and flexible to change.

Are there any cities functioning well with absolutely *no* lower-income people living in the downtown? (Is there a homeless issue?)

If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps we should take it to another thread?

BACK ON TOPIC: I would love to see a skyline rendering including the Roy and all the other project was have on the go!

[Nilan8888]

All I'll say is that... I think I was misinterpreted there. I quoted you in my response, but I thought I was in agreement. I was using what you said to make more of a general point in reference to that article about the Roy, referring to it being built to service Halifax's "super-rich".

That said, I suppose it wasn't very clear and it could be easily thought to be addressing a particular person: namely the person whose quote I was using.

[RyeJay]

Edit. Not worth it.

[someone123]

ANS is reporting that the Roy Building demolition has begun. Construction work on the new building is set to start in the spring.

[Drybrain]

Oof. I knew it was coming but it's still intense to see it happen. Mixed feelings, but anyway, construction can't start soon enough--I pray to God there is't some economic catastrophe in the next year or so that leaves the site in limbo. It happened in '89, after all!

[teddifax]

ANS is reporting that the Roy Building demolition has begun. Construction work on the new building is set to start in the spring.

Please let this be built quickly. We don't need another hole in the ground. The design is really nice and I am looking forward to seeing it built!

[Haliguy]

Please let this be built quickly. We don't need another hole in the ground. The design is really nice and I am looking forward to seeing it built!

Agreed...this project makes me a bit nervous. I really hope things move along quickly! If it doesn't it won't be good for Barrington St and the downtown.