General Updates and News

[someone123]

I really hope St. Pat's is handled better than the last school. Hopefully we'll see a decent mixed-use development and an attempt at creatively using the existing structure instead of more thoughtless demolition.

[Keith P.]

Oh, good. That will ensure it will go to a non-profit who cannot afford to maintain/upgrade it, which means we will be afflicted with another rundown building on a prominent corner.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Oh, good. That will ensure it will go to a non-profit who cannot afford to maintain/upgrade it, which means we will be afflicted with another rundown building on a prominent corner.

Exactly what I was thinking. Or asbestos community garden. :yuck: Watts would love that.

There should be a 15-20 story development on this site with retail at street level and parking behind.

[halifaxboyns]

Exactly what I was thinking. Or asbestos community garden. :yuck: Watts would love that.

There should be a 15-20 story development on this site with retail at street level and parking behind.

If I'm not mistaken, it was a site identified for significant height in the work being done for the corridors within the Regional Centre plan.

[ILoveHalifax]

I would much prefer they bull doze the whole thing and start from scratch with some new exciting design. We have enough of our development framed by so called heritage and 1950's is not really signifigant heritage.

[Fischbob]

From taking a look at the school in Google Street View, I tend to agree with ILoveHalifax. There may be some heritage value to the building but I think that's outweighed by the site's current street presence: passive institutional walls, few entrances and large setbacks. Starting from scratch would allow for the extension of Quinpool's commercial streetscape as well as providing a nice shot in the arm for residential density in the area. Perhaps some parts of the building such as the auditorium could be retained and/or repurposed.

[MonctonRad]

There is nothing worth saving architecturally at Saint Pats. Better to bulldoze and start afresh with a good quality mixed use development with decent height.

Repurposing older buildings and/or preserving facades is a great idea for selected developments in the core, but Quinpool is an arterial street connecting to, but not intimately associated with the downtown. There is no need to do anything to preserve this relic of an old high school. It's falling apart anyway.

Some added height along the west side of the commons would be very nice, and would add to the urban appeal of the neighbourhood, as well as the skyline as seen from the commons. I would agree, something in the 18-25 storey range would be very nice. Just make it nicer than Quingate Place. I lived in the condos behind Quingate for four years and that is a pretty nondescript building......

[Drybrain]

Repurposing older buildings and/or preserving facades is a great idea for selected developments in the core, but Quinpool is an arterial street connecting to, but not intimately associated with the downtown. There is no need to do anything to preserve this relic of an old high school. It's falling apart anyway.

.

Mmm, honestly though, and I don't say this to be argumentative, but repurposing older buildings and facades isn't great "for selected development." If the building in question is in any way substantial, it's usually the best choice--and that means economically as well. (Seriously, compare property values in heritage-rich inner-city districts with property values in heritage-deprived inner-city districts. With few exceptions, the former are usually higher, frequently enough that most urbanists and planners today infer a cause and effect scenario.)

It's funny to see how Halifax was late to the game with modern developments in the '50s-60s, and is now late to the game again as most other Canadian cities have pretty much stopped reckless demolition and come to value their finite supply of older structures. (I can't even think of a single significant heritage demolition in Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal in the last few years. I can think of some crappy facadectomies and a few unfortunate fires, but no full-on tear-downs. But I can think of several impending BIG ones in Halifax, including tow full blocks of Spring Garden.)

Anyway,as you might expect, I also disagree that the 1950s isn't significant heritage. The building could be very handsomely restored. It is true that the building doesn't really add much to Quinpool though, from a commercial perspective, which is why I wouldn't get too up in arms about it. But I'd LOVE to see the auditorium saved. Great mid-century take on neo-classical, and there are so few grand theatres in the city.

[haligonia]

Anyway,as you might expect, I also disagree that the 1950s isn't significant heritage. The building could be very handsomely restored. It is true that the building doesn't really add much to Quinpool though, from a commercial perspective, which is why I wouldn't get too up in arms about it. But I'd LOVE to see the auditorium saved. Great mid-century take on neo-classical, and there are so few grand theatres in the city.

Yes! The auditorium is lovely, and would make for a great music/performance space if properly restored.

[someone123]

There have been lots of demolitions of heritage buildings in Toronto (a 15-20 storey 20's Art Deco office building is probably going to come down), Montreal, and Vancouver (which has very little left -- right now one big story here is the Waldorf Hotel) over the last few years. That doesn't make it right in Halifax, but actually the situation there is pretty typical (although I think it has more significant heritage buildings than most Canadian cities in terms of age, uniqueness, and national impact). Canada as a whole isn't that great about heritage preservation, and there's a bias toward preserving quaint buildings or buildings based on historical personalities or events rather than preserving buildings for the sake of maintaining urban character.

The "keep or demolish" question is a false dilemma. It might be possible to reuse part of the building. It's also not just a heritage issue, it's also an economic and environmental issue. The bottom line is that there doesn't seem to be enough information to decide whether or not to keep the building, even though some people always jump to the conclusion that it should be torn down and replaced. Back in the 1960's and 70's some people thought that just about every old stone building should be torn down because they inferior to new buildings. The 20's and 30's buildings in particular were not yet appreciated much, just as 50's buildings are not much appreciated today.

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

I don't know anything about the auditorium at Saint Pats. If it is very nice, or if it has tremendous sentimental value then preserving the auditorium would certainly have to be a consideration. The auditorium at the Moncton High School is a major issue in terms of redeveloping that property.

Doesn't Saint Pats have an issue with asbestos? Wouldn't that caise major problems in trying to save this property?

[someone123]

Doesn't Saint Pats have an issue with asbestos? Wouldn't that caise major problems in trying to save this property?

It would take some detailed information and knowledge about trade-offs (how much it would cost to tear down the building or construct a replacement vs. fixing the problems) to decide whether or not it's worth dealing with.

To be honest I think asbestos is often used as an excuse for demanding new buildings. Mould is similar. Both of them are real health hazards to be sure but they also cause hysteria and they are convenient excuses.

[Drybrain]

:previous:

I don't know anything about the auditorium at Saint Pats. If it is very nice, or if it has tremendous sentimental value then preserving the auditorium would certainly have to be a consideration. The auditorium at the Moncton High School is a major issue in terms of redeveloping that property.

Doesn't Saint Pats have an issue with asbestos? Wouldn't that caise major problems in trying to save this property?

Just about any office building, public, building, or school constructed or renovated between the the 1930s and early 1980s probably has some asbestos in it somewhere, as do lots of private homes. We all go in and out of asbestos containing buildings everyday, so I agree with Someone123 that asbestos is often used as an excuse for demolition. Scotia Square and all our 1970s bank towers are probably full of insulating asbestos.

[Drybrain]

There have been lots of demolitions of heritage buildings in Toronto (a 15-20 storey 20's Art Deco office building is probably going to come down), Montreal, and Vancouver (which has very little left -- right now one big story here is the Waldorf Hotel) over the last few years.

Yeah, I just saw that art-deco one. Not a total demo, in that they're saving the facades on two sides, but the renderigs I've seen (a 16-storey deco tower stapled to one corner of a much larger glass tower) looks kinda stupid. Funnily enough, something like it was proposed in 200, and Christopher Hume wrote a column at the time condemning such facadism as outdated urban thinking—13 years ago!

But then there's stuff like this, which reminds me of impending development at 5262 Sackville (Strange Adventures). This building (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=118+yonge&hl=en&ll=43.650563,-79.374397&spn=0.012343,0.028389&safe=off&hq=118+yonge&hnear=Toronto,+Ontario&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.650467,-79.378449&panoid=003RskRDrSezHr58AJlJxA&cbp=12,275.49,,0,-22.24) on Yonge was the subject of a demolition application last year by a developer who wanted to build a tower. The city quickly put through a heritage designation on it, and now the developer is going to dis-assemble it and then re-assemble it on the other side of the block, restored, at their own expense. It would be great to see developers take that sort of care here, as opposed to the Danny Chedrawes and Mickey MacDonalds, who think nothing of proposing the destruction of a whole block.

[Hali87]

:previous:

I don't know anything about the auditorium at Saint Pats. If it is very nice, or if it has tremendous sentimental value then preserving the auditorium would certainly have to be a consideration. The auditorium at the Moncton High School is a major issue in terms of redeveloping that property.

Doesn't Saint Pats have an issue with asbestos? Wouldn't that caise major problems in trying to save this property?

I don't remember what the inside of the st. Pat's auditorium is like but the exterior is by far the nicest part of that building (at least in its current state). It would be nice if the auditorium were saved for this reason and also because, outside of the universities, there aren't actually that many spaces like this in the city. I'm pretty indifferent as to whether they redevelop the exsisting (ruins of a) building or build something new, although if a substantial fix-up were done I could see this being converted into an interesting loft-style apartment building (much like Greenvale).

[musicman]

Last time i was in Saint Pats there was one whole wing that was closed off... The building is in deplorable shape and has been basically left to rot for the last 20 or so years. Even when there were students in it. There are beams in there that i'm sure you could punch through with a chipping hammer. It is very unfortunate that it has been left to basically wast away..

[Keith P.]

Last time i was in Saint Pats there was one whole wing that was closed off... The building is in deplorable shape and has been basically left to rot for the last 20 or so years. Even when there were students in it. There are beams in there that i'm sure you could punch through with a chipping hammer. It is very unfortunate that it has been left to basically wast away..

Even when I was a student at St Pat's in the early '70s it was in bad shape, especially the seating area. I can only imagine what it is like now. A number of years ago HRSB stripped the sandstone off most of the building, leaving the ugly mess it now is, because it was apparently either a safety hazard or was hiding leaky walls. I would think the lack of maintenance of the structure must be severe by now.

[musicman]

The sandstone is actually on citadel high... they took distinctive parts from both schools it replaced.

[SekishikiMeikaiHa]

Marriott Renovations, Front Entrance:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8519494215_6ec16181b0_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8519493919_545befb652_b.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

You have to be out of your mind to think that St. Pat's auditorium or anything aside from exterior sandstone features should be saved.

That who site needs to be redeveloped. Sell it to a developer, demolish it, and build residential capacity. No wonder rent is so high in the city, we have no decent apartments in this area. Its either homes or shady units in Quinpool towers.

[fenwick16]

Marriott Renovations, Front Entrance:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8519494215_6ec16181b0_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8519493919_545befb652_b.jpg


What a great shot. The interior finishes are outstanding.

[Nifta]

Which Marriott is that?

[mcmcclassic]

Which Marriott is that?

The one by the casino on the waterfront. Lower Water St.

[coolmillion]

I went to the Carmichael Lecture last night to see Gil Penalosa. He didn't say much that was original but he was very energetic and entertaining and I thought he conveyed some important points very effectively.

The talk touched on many topics - transit, biking, public spaces, walking, density - but the main takeaway point is that we should build cities for people first and foremost. A city that both an 8 year old and an 80 year old feel comfortable and happy in is good for everyone. He tied this to economic competitiveness as well, suggesting that money goes to places with high quality of life. He didn't say too much about Halifax but what he did say was spot on: it's harder to change when things are pretty good. Halifax is doing ok; it's not great but it's not bad. It would be much easier to feel an urgent need for change if things were worse.

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories). He is expert on density (planning more generally) and he doesn't think that highrises are the way to go because they have negative impacts on the public realm. I know this is an unpopular perspective on this forum but I'd just like to say he made a pretty convincing argument. It's not about heritage or views; it's about what good for people on the street. In Halifax he would probably encourage the redevelopment of transit corridors, and especially more transit oriented development, but not more highrise buildings. "Vancouverism" would disagree, however. This is the one question I wanted to ask but I had to leave before the Q and A.

Anyway, it was great to see a packed room listen to a great speaker say inspiring things about how to make cities great for people.

[RyeJay]

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories).

At least this notion is unlikely to scare Halifax's anti-height crowd. If more of HRM can develop density via low-rise buildings, eventually we will see more mid and high-rise towers.

[Nilan8888]

I think variety is really the way to go myself.

A couple more high-rises in Halifax is not really going to break anything, but concentrating largely on mid-rise and street-level life? Sure thing. I think the key is to diversify what you've got.

[Drybrain]

I went to the Carmichael Lecture last night to see Gil Penalosa. He didn't say much that was original but he was very energetic and entertaining and I thought he conveyed some important points very effectively.

...

Getting to the point I want to share: he talked about creating density with low-rise buildings (4 to 7 stories). He is expert on density (planning more generally) and he doesn't think that highrises are the way to go because they have negative impacts on the public realm. I know this is an unpopular perspective on this forum but I'd just like to say he made a pretty convincing argument. It's not about heritage or views; it's about what good for people on the street. In Halifax he would probably encourage the redevelopment of transit corridors, and especially more transit oriented development, but not more highrise buildings. "Vancouverism" would disagree, however. This is the one question I wanted to ask but I had to leave before the Q and A.

Anyway, it was great to see a packed room listen to a great speaker say inspiring things about how to make cities great for people.

I'm completely in agreement with this. A few towers will be nice as punctuation for the skyline, but honestly, skyscrapers don't excite me ythat much—filling out the city's many empty patches and making it more cohesively urban throughout the built-up area (especially the peninsula) does. At 415,000 people in the entire region, it's economics—we might envy the muscular skyline of bigger cities, but we don't have enough people to fill up loads of towers. There just isn't the demand. I would say that in Halifax, four to eight storey buildings ARE our Vancouverism.

Besides, in both vancouver and Toronto there's been a lot of talk lately about too many mega-towers in the core and around transit nodes sucking all the development away from other parts of the city. It doesn't really do anything for the urbanity of the city overall—just overburdens infrastructure in one place while leaving others largely unchanged.

I've said it before on this forum, but if we could fill in all the parking lots and strip malls and car dealerships from South Street to Young Street with well-built, attractive four-to-eight-storey buildings (with a few taller ones here and there) good lord, what a different and better and more urban city we'd have.

[worldlyhaligonian]

honestly, skyscrapers don't excite me that much


Said nobody ever on a Skyscraper forum.

[Drybrain]

Said nobody ever on a Skyscraper forum.

Hey, what can I say? I mean, they excite me inasmuch as they work to build great cities. But excellent planning and city building is a lot more exciting. Skyscrapers can be part of that. But not always.

[Jstaleness]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't come here to get excited about 4-8 storey buildings. I get excited when someone proposes the idea that Halifax might get a tower that is iconic or different from anything we already have. We have enough low rises. I am not totally against them but I don't want to live in city that may reach a million people someday and have nothing over 21 storeys.

[beyeas]

It all depends on where we are talking about.

In the downtown we should be building towers. We have a downtown that is physically restricted by geography, and we need to be using the available land wisely through high density. I agree with whoever said that height variation is also key, but one could argue that we already have lots of short buildings in the downtown, and it is the height that we are "short" on (pardon the pun).

I don't however have a big issue with a focus on medium density (10 story and under) buildings in other areas, in particular if they went along with corresponding transit corridors. Think how much more vibrant Quinpool, Arigicola and Robie (north of North) would be if they had continuous 5-10 story housing that interfaced with the sidewalk through street level commercial usage, and had streetcars regularly connecting them with the core. Combined with the lower density adjacent structures they would be phenomenal neighbourhoods.

I am certainly on this forum 'cause I love to see iconic structures get built, and since we have so few places in this city to build them we need to not cover those locations with stubbiness. At the same time, I would rather have a line of 8 story buildings going up Agricola with a streetcar whose cost was offset by the development fees and property taxes, than one single skyscraper on that street. It is all about the location for me.

[alps]

I wouldn't call myself a skyscraper enthusiast either, and my favourite areas of Hong Kong aren't the glitzy business districts with all the bank towers, but the grubbier, gritter everyday areas of "lowrise" (by HK standards) buildings of nine stories or so. Dense, walkable areas are most exciting to me.

But: normally when people come to Halifax and make this argument that low-midrise buildings are the best way to add density, they usually bring up places like Paris or Berlin. One problem there is that the dwellings in Paris are tiny units that wouldn't be marketable here so I never thought those were very relevant examples. While midrise infill is great and much needed, I think it's still best density-wise to make room for well-designed tall buildings.

[Drybrain]

But: normally when people come to Halifax and make this argument that low-midrise buildings are the best way to add density, they usually bring up places like Paris or Berlin. One problem there is that the dwellings in Paris are tiny units that wouldn't be marketable here so I never thought those were very relevant examples. While midrise infill is great and much needed, I think it's still best density-wise to make room for well-designed tall buildings.

I don't think our mid-rise developments are being modelled after Paris' little garret apartments, though. Besides, a lot of high-rise developments in Canada are just packing 300-500 sq. ft bachelor-sized rabbit warrens into 50-storey buildings.

Check out the proposed North End mid-rises on this map (http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/). Probably nicely-sized units in there. Picture all the North End's surface parking, one-storey aluminum warehouses, and weedy lots filled up with stuff like those.

It's a matter of economics—Halifax adds about 2,000 new households a year, only some of which go to the peninsula/Dartmouth. A 40-storey building might have 300-350 units right there. Going high-rise in Halifax means substantially fewer construction sites and more of those gaping holes left in our urban fabric. When those holes are filled in, and building sites become scarcer, I'll be the first to say "Build up!" rather than demolishing our older building stock. But there's so much infill opportunity right now (IMO). Plus, it's easier to sell neighbourhoods on mid-rise than high-rise, and the accrual of density, ultimately, is just as good, only spread over a few blocks than on one lot.

[hoser111]

...Besides, a lot of high-rise developments in Canada are just packing 300-500 sq. ft bachelor-sized rabbit warrens into 50-storey buildings.

Oooh... just think how one of those developments would drive council crazy given their aversion to dealing with small animals such as cats & chickens. Rabbits & highrises! :D

[Hali87]

Hey, what can I say? I mean, they excite me inasmuch as they work to build great cities. But excellent planning and city building is a lot more exciting. Skyscrapers can be part of that. But not always.

I agree 100%. I think the end goal should be to build the best/most livable city possible, not to have the tallest buildings in region x. To me highrises are the means, not the end, and they are not the only means. Doesn't mean don't build them, but to me building skyscrapers just for their own sake is kind of silly and potentially counterproductive, as is being realized in Toronto currently.

I tend to think of this as an architecture and urban design forum. I hope that's ok.

[someone123]

I think abstract discussions of height are pretty much useless.

In downtown Halifax, maybe 2/3 or more of the land is either under viewplanes, is public open space, or has a heritage building on it. Farther out in areas like the West End people want to maintain the character of their neighbourhoods. The densities in these parts of the city are often so low and the amount of developable land is so small that 4 story buildings won't result in the type of vibrancy being discusses here. Even 8 storey buildings might not cut it.

The idea of 4-8 being "natural" for Halifax isn't necessarily true either. The city has something like 100 highrise buildings of 12 floors or more, and developers seem to commonly propose buildings in the 12-20 range. Fenwick will soon be 36.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I think abstract discussions of height are pretty much useless.

In downtown Halifax, maybe 2/3 or more of the land is either under viewplanes, is public open space, or has a heritage building on it. Farther out in areas like the West End people want to maintain the character of their neighbourhoods. The densities in these parts of the city are often so low and the amount of developable land is so small that 4 story buildings won't result in the type of vibrancy being discusses here. Even 8 storey buildings might not cut it.

The idea of 4-8 being "natural" for Halifax isn't necessarily true either. The city has something like 100 highrise buildings of 12 floors or more, and developers seem to commonly propose buildings in the 12-20 range. Fenwick will soon be 36.

Exactly, 4-8 being natural is a myth. Halifax's street level businesses could do with a few apartment buildings downtown at 30-40 stories.

[Drybrain]

Exactly, 4-8 being natural is a myth. Halifax's street level businesses could do with a few apartment buildings downtown at 30-40 stories.

I'm not saying 4-8 is natural, or that highrises are bad. And certainly downtown, building to the viewplane maximum is desirable. There's totally a place for high-rises, I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be the default densification tool in a city this small, at this point. I'm much more excited by the opportunity presented by mid-rise to have a better effect at building out the city's patchwork urban fabric.

High-rises can be very good, and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm against them. It's just at this point (outside of the downtown core, as Someone123 very rightly points out, where the buildable space is at a premium and should be maximized) the urbanizing potential of mid-rise seems greater to me.

[someone123]

Part of what I find weird about this debate is that the city in practice already gets a pretty decent mix of building heights. Most new North End projects are midrise, for example. Same thing goes for many downtown projects like the Sister Sites. Meanwhile, Skye was voted down.

[Duff]

Speaking of midrise in the north end. Another project is planned for Isleville Street! This time, its the other corner of Bilby & 2859-2863 Isleville. This is the 3rd proposal for this street in the last 12 months, and 5th for the area between Russell & Bloomfield.

I received this in the mail because I live right around the corner. Nothing yet on height or renderings but hopefully they will show something next Thursday at the meeting.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8519/8541586715_a4c05b6570_b.jpg

[coolmillion]

Gil Penalosa made two points that are interesting in the context of this conversation. The first is that it is a myth that you need to build highrises in order to create density. Most highrises are (required to be) spaced so far apart that lower buildings more tightly packed can hold the same number of units. The second is that low-rise buildings create better streets. He advocates building heights the same width as the street - wider streets, taller buildings. There is nothing radical about either of these ideas and they are widely recognized by planners all over the world (except some cities in Asia with severe land shortage).

The Vancouver example is interesting because though the city has built a lot of towers downtown, it has done so while retaining some of the benefits of low-rise street profile by using podiums and set-backs and by requiring towers to be very narrow. Most of the rest of the city only has tall towers around transit stations. Many cities require low-rise podiums but Halifax has a bad history of allowing tall wide towers (Park Vic, Brunswick Street, the Paramount on South Park, etc). I'm not sure if the planning by-laws would still allow this type of design. I hope not.

I have nothing against tall buildings per se but I don't think that most of downtown Halifax has an ideal topography or layout for highrises. The streets are narrow, the blocks are small and the incline creates complications for entrances and street frontage. Also, the way the hill slopes down to the east means that there is very little sunlight in the afternoon to begin with, making it not the most pleasant place to be (except if there is a gaping hole - like on Argyle Street currently... the patios have never been better!).

I think the idea of building tall buildings in order to create a nice skyline is kind of lame. You see a skyline from a distance, but people have to live in it. A lot of American cities had pretty amazing skylines in the 70s and 80s but were pretty wretched places to live. In contrast some of the nicest cities in the world have unremarkable skylines but amazing and vibrant street life. European cities like London and Paris have highrises, but only in certain areas.

In Halifax I think that the Financial District, Cogswell lands, around the Halifax Shopping Centre/Jo Howe drive and upper Spring Garden are good places for highrises. I really think that design should be first and foremost, however.

[Drybrain]

The Vancouver example is interesting because though the city has built a lot of towers downtown, it has done so while retaining some of the benefits of low-rise street profile by using podiums and set-backs and by requiring towers to be very narrow. Most of the rest of the city only has tall towers around transit stations. Many cities require low-rise podiums but Halifax has a bad history of allowing tall wide towers (Park Vic, Brunswick Street, the Paramount on South Park, etc). I'm not sure if the planning by-laws would still allow this type of design. I hope not.


Yup. The most important thing in high-rise design is where the building meets the street. High-rise districts without them can be densely populated but otherwise, fundamentally suburban. (I'm thinking especially of Gladstone Ridge...shudder. Again, someone please drive Danny Chedrawe out of the development industry. Good intentions, pitiful execution.) One exception is the Triillium, actually. I really don't like the building, but from that perspective, it succeeded.



I think the idea of building tall buildings in order to create a nice skyline is kind of lame. You see a skyline from a distance, but people have to live in it.

Exactly my point. There was a good argument made earlier that our residential neighbourhoods are generally considered to be built and stable, so we're not going to be able to densify the city to, say, a Parisian level. (Outside of the North End, with its many industrial spaces and weedy lots.)

Still, I feel as if there's a lot of room for piecemeal development. We should protect our historical residential streetscapes, especially the saltboxes and Victorians, but there are still plenty of unremarkable, mid-20th century suburban-style houses on the peninsula that look like they could have been built anywhere in North America, at any point in the last 60 years. A six-storey building could replace just two or three of those houses, and double the density of a given block.

[someone123]

Yup. The most important thing in high-rise design is where the building meets the street.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it's very good for development-related discussion to be overly preoccupied with height. I would rather see a slender 30 storey building with a nice podium than a square 20 storey box. Historically, the squat boxes are what the height limits in Halifax have encouraged.

I also think it makes sense to grant more height to a developer in order to get improvements to the public realm. If you only allow 6 storey buildings there isn't much room for doing expensive things like disassembling and moving heritage buildings, but if you allow more units a lot of things become economically viable. Height should be seen as part of a wider set of trade-offs.

[q12]

New site offers one-stop shop for the latest development details in Halifax

March 11, 2013 Updated: March 11, 2013 | 9:26 pm

By Ruth Davenport

Halifax residents now have a one-stop shop for information on all developments in the urban core, complete with details about the proposal and who’s building it.

The Planning and Design Centre (PDC) Construction Site provides an interactive map of projects within the HRMbyDesign downtown area, colour-coded by stage of completion.

Read more here:
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/591070/you-can-now-point-and-click-for-the-latest-development-details-in-halifax/

http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/

Check out the list for latest renders:
http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/list

[Wishblade]

http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/

Check out the list for latest renders:
http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/list

What a great find. Thank you very much!

[IanWatson]

"Vancouverism" would disagree, however.

Did you go to Larry Beasley's talk on Saturday morning? I think one of the most salient points he made was that Halifax is not Vancouver is not Toronto is not Montreal is not Moncton, etc., etc. In other words, the point is to build a liveable city, but how you do that really needs to come from the local context; what works in one place shouldn't be "copy and pasted" to another. This is coming from the man who basically created Vancouverism. He added that the multitude of tall towers worked in Vancouver because of the backdrop of the mountains, and that it probably won't work here. Another thing he brought up is how envious he is of the heritage here, and how we should do everything to protect it. The diversity our heritage buildings bring is a hugely valuable resource in creating a liveable city.

[coolmillion]

Did you go to Larry Beasley's talk on Saturday morning? I think one of the most salient points he made was that Halifax is not Vancouver is not Toronto is not Montreal is not Moncton, etc., etc. In other words, the point is to build a liveable city, but how you do that really needs to come from the local context; what works in one place shouldn't be "copy and pasted" to another. This is coming from the man who basically created Vancouverism. He added that the multitude of tall towers worked in Vancouver because of the backdrop of the mountains, and that it probably won't work here. Another thing he brought up is how envious he is of the heritage here, and how we should do everything to protect it. The diversity our heritage buildings bring is a hugely valuable resource in creating a liveable city.

I didn't see the talk but I agree with the points raised. I wasn't advocating Vancouverism but it is interesting that it has become one of the most "mobile" models of urban planning globally. Apparently Dubai has constructed a waterfront park using Vancouver's Sea Wall as a template.

I would caution that this argument about local uniqueness is sometimes used as a defense against change... (ie we couldn't possibly do something that worked in Vancouver or Toronto because we're have a unique set of local issues that are distinct). The key is learning about and adapting successful practices to local circumstances. I'm actually doing research on this idea - urban policy transfer and mobility. Halifax actually has a lot to learn from other cities in the area of heritage conservation. Although we have some good buildings and streetscapes we do a pitiful job of protecting them, making them relevant and interesting and engaging the broader public in this conversation.

I was happy to see the Carmichael lecture but I wish I'd gotten to some of the conference over the weekend. Such interesting presenters and no doubt great ideas and discussions.

[Nifta]

http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/

Check out the list for latest renders:
http://pdcentre.ca/construction-site/list


Fantastic! What a great resource

[Nilan8888]

It is a good resource.

...although I do think it's funny that after a quick look at the site, dmaJackson's compilation thread on these forums actually has listings this does not. I'm not seeing the Craigmore drive condo project for instance, or the ALT Hotel project for the airport. No mention of Mount Royale, either.

[Wishblade]

It is a good resource.

...although I do think it's funny that after a quick look at the site, dmaJackson's compilation thread on these forums actually has listings this does not. I'm not seeing the Craigmore drive condo project for instance, or the ALT Hotel project for the airport. No mention of Mount Royale, either.

Thats because this site strictly focuses on the urban core (Penninsula & Dartmouth within the circ).

[Nilan8888]

But they've got 3561 Dutch Village listed. That's not actually on the peninsula, and no further out than the Craigmore condos...

[Drybrain]

It also doesn't have the redevelopment at the old Strange Adventures/Taz site, or this one (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case16958Details.html).

But that's a little one and I can see how it would get lost. Not to qubble, anyway—great tool, especially if they keep it updated.

[pblaauw]

Fantastic! What a great resource

Except that the "current site" photo and rendering for RBC Waterside are actually from the Nova Centre.

[Phalanx]

New site offers one-stop shop for the latest development details in Halifax
By Ruth Davenport
Halifax residents now have a one-stop shop for information on all developments in the urban core, complete with details about the proposal and who’s building it.

The Planning and Design Centre (PDC) Construction Site provides an interactive map of projects within the HRMbyDesign downtown area, colour-coded by stage of completion.

Full article (http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/591070/you-can-now-point-and-click-for-the-latest-development-details-in-halifax)

I found this statement a bit odd, though:
“We want to bring decision making more out into the open, so we want people to feel as though they’re much more part of the planning process and not that decisions are being made in the back room,” said Soward.

He said a project like the Nova Centre might have benefited from using the site to communicate designs to the public.

“People didn’t have a clue what was going on there, it was a hole in the ground for over a year,” he said. “We know they’re digging…but we don’t know what the next stage is in terms of final approvals and things like that.”

The Nova Centre went through an exhaustive public consultation and awareness campaign. There are several detailed websites detailing exactly what's planned for the site, and the process involved at getting there.

[fenwick16]

I think this skyscraperpage forum has the most up to date information.

[Duff]

I think this skyscraperpage forum has the most up to date information.

Agreed. I think that they know this as well. They actually used a picture I uploaded to the Gottingen & Bilby Development thread under that proposal on their website.

[bluenoser]

I don't know if we need to resurrect the old thread or what...


Renovations underway at Halifax Seaport Market

'This is the dawn of a new day'

CBC News
Posted: Mar 14, 2013 7:18 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 14, 2013 8:45 AM AT
Read 13 comments13

The Halifax Seaport Farmers' Market is undergoing extensive renovations and at least one vendor says he hopes the overhaul will mark the end of tumultuous times for the market.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/14/ns-halifax-market-renovations.html

[scooby074]

I don't know if we need to resurrect the old thread or what...


Renovations underway at Halifax Seaport Market

'This is the dawn of a new day'

CBC News
Posted: Mar 14, 2013 7:18 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 14, 2013 8:45 AM AT
Read 13 comments13

The Halifax Seaport Farmers' Market is undergoing extensive renovations and at least one vendor says he hopes the overhaul will mark the end of tumultuous times for the market.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/14/ns-halifax-market-renovations.html

Ok, so the Market is knee deep in red ink to the tune of millions, so they spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in additional monies to upgrade a building that was supposed to be "top of the line" a mere few years ago.

Brilliant !! :koko:

[Keith P.]

The design process and ensuing design itself was a complete disaster. They employed a designer who apparently either never looked at a market before starting out, or took the original design and totally changed it based upon input from everyone and their dog. The result was this camel of a committee-designed horse that cost us $15 million. The minute I heard about the "living wall" I had grave doubts that anyone involved had a clue. Upon opening, vendors were shocked to find no or inadequate utility connections and for those involved in cooking on-site, ventilation and fire control that was totally outside of code requirements. And of course once it did open, traffic flow inside was an utter disaster. It was a complete boondoggle. So the redesign is badly needed. Hopefully the taxpayer will not the given the bill.

[Drybrain]

Just to provide a counter to the negativity--yes, there were serious problems with the design, and it's unfortunate that they have to go back after the fact to try and correct those errors.

But the market is a fantastic civic resource. A beautiful, sunny building overlooking the harbour is a vastly better location than the warren of underground tunnels it used to be in. It's still a great place on a Saturday morning, and I've never brought an out-of-towner there without them coming away with positive impressions. (Hopefully it can become more vital throughout the week, after the renos.)

[someone123]

Just to provide a counter to the negativity--yes, there were serious problems with the design, and it's unfortunate that they have to go back after the fact to try and correct those errors.

But the market is a fantastic civic resource. A beautiful, sunny building overlooking the harbour is a vastly better location than the warren of underground tunnels it used to be in. It's still a great place on a Saturday morning, and I've never brought an out-of-towner there without them coming away with positive impressions. (Hopefully it can become more vital throughout the week, after the renos.)

I think the new building is a huge improvement and a major asset to the city. It's too bad it wasn't executed a little better, but if I had to guess I would bet that a lot of initiatives like this that were eventually successful had rocky starts.

Halifax is better than it used to be but I think it's still too conservative for its own good.

[eastcoastal]

Ok, so the Market is knee deep in red ink to the tune of millions, so they spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in additional monies to upgrade a building that was supposed to be "top of the line" a mere few years ago.

Brilliant !! :koko:

I don't get the impression that the rework is intended to address parts of the building considered to no longer be top of the line. I think that they are trying to address issues like access and pedestrian flow (the upgrades mentioned involve the stairs and creation of a new main entrance). The building materials and finishes are ok, but the overall design needs tweaking. I think it's smart to try to address shortcomings now, rather than carrying on with a layout that isn't/wasn't working.

My observations have been that from the exterior, the building looks like a nicely detailed box, but doesn't express "market." Perhaps a better indoor/outdoor connection (the garage doors) and some exterior canopies will help. I was talking to a coworker about this yesterday, and he observed that on the walk from parking (I assume from the lot over closer to Pier 21 and the Cunard Centre) there is quite a stretch of barren sidewalk, and you don't really experience "market" until you walk through the doors. This could be a (good weather?) fix of including outdoor vending stalls as an alternative to expanding southward into the annex, which happens when there are 1) enough vendors and 2) no cruise ships.

My personal experience has been that if I go with the intent to fulfill a shopping list, I can end up bouncing back and forth between stalls on the interior, retracing my own steps a few times - this can be frustrating, and doesn't encourage me to go, unless I feel like battling directionless milling about on a Saturday morning. If, on the other hand, I go with the intent to browse and people watch (probably adding to the directionless milling about), the layout isn't as frustrating.

I don't hate the existing green wall, but if removing it helps make a more useable space, I say go for it.

Now, I wonder what open garage doors will do to the (presumably carefully controlled) heating and ventilation system installed as part of the LEED effort.

[bluenoser]

Barrington Street height limit increase considered

Proposal will affect Westin Nova Scotian, Via Rail and Atlantic Superstore

CBC News
Posted: Mar 15, 2013 9:41 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2013 12:00 PM AT

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-heights-8col.jpg
This lot on the corner of South and Hollis streets has been vacant since a fire two years ago. (CBC)

The Halifax Regional Municipality is considering increasing the height limit for several properties at the south end of Barrington Street, including a lot that has been vacant since a fire two years ago.

Although the current height restriction on the site is 45 feet or approximately 13.7 metres, planners with the municipality want to change that to nearly 22 metres — approximately seven storeys.

Waye Mason, the councillor for Peninsula South Downtown, said the lower height restriction was kept in place while new rules were developed for the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District near the street's south end.

But some historical buildings at the corner of South and Hollis streets had to be demolished after faulty wiring sparked a fire two years ago — the lot has been vacant since.

Mason said he doesn't think the previous height restrictions need to be in place for a vacant lot.

...

Phil Pacey, of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the proposal alarms him.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-height-limit.html

------

I wonder if Phil feels another parking lot better complements the train station and rounds out Cornwallis Park?

[Drybrain]

Good lord. Does Phil Pacey actually think the train station is in danger of being demolished? It's A: Heritage-designated, and B: Still in use as a train station. It's a lot more likely that the enormous, awful Atlantic Superstore site would be redeveloped to something less suburban in character.

Meanwhile, there are historic buildings in real, imminent danger of being demolition, and Pacey is completely silent on that.

[W.Sobchak]

Antime I read something by phil pacey, I immediately think of the the three manors that were originally on the Trillium site, and due to the HT's vision, nothing was done and away they went. The developer even said they would help in their transfer.

[scooby074]

I don't get the impression that the rework is intended to address parts of the building considered to no longer be top of the line. I think that they are trying to address issues like access and pedestrian flow (the upgrades mentioned involve the stairs and creation of a new main entrance). The building materials and finishes are ok, but the overall design needs tweaking. I think it's smart to try to address shortcomings now, rather than carrying on with a layout that isn't/wasn't working.

My observations have been that from the exterior, the building looks like a nicely detailed box, but doesn't express "market." Perhaps a better indoor/outdoor connection (the garage doors) and some exterior canopies will help. I was talking to a coworker about this yesterday, and he observed that on the walk from parking (I assume from the lot over closer to Pier 21 and the Cunard Centre) there is quite a stretch of barren sidewalk, and you don't really experience "market" until you walk through the doors. This could be a (good weather?) fix of including outdoor vending stalls as an alternative to expanding southward into the annex, which happens when there are 1) enough vendors and 2) no cruise ships.

My personal experience has been that if I go with the intent to fulfill a shopping list, I can end up bouncing back and forth between stalls on the interior, retracing my own steps a few times - this can be frustrating, and doesn't encourage me to go, unless I feel like battling directionless milling about on a Saturday morning. If, on the other hand, I go with the intent to browse and people watch (probably adding to the directionless milling about), the layout isn't as frustrating.

I don't hate the existing green wall, but if removing it helps make a more useable space, I say go for it.

Now, I wonder what open garage doors will do to the (presumably carefully controlled) heating and ventilation system installed as part of the LEED effort.

I think they should hold off on any investments until they start to gain support through the week.

From what I read of the proposed changes, none of them really seem to address the flow of people there on the weekends nor do I think the changes will pull people there through the week.

One addition, roll up doors, will be useless in winter. And in summer, they already have significant outdoor vendors without needing these doors. They may help people get in and out, but in my experience that is not the problem, the problem is flow once inside.

Adding ledges upstairs so people can eat and look down on the floor below, is interesting, but how many people will actually wander upstairs with their snacks as opposed to just eating on the lower floor as is done now? And, if eating upstairs happens to become popular, is it wise to have those extra bodies up there cluttering up the already narrow upper walkway?

On fire safety and electrical, thats just bad design from the start!! But it looks like they must have that sorted now because there are several kitchens in the market currently. I didnt see any reference to upgrades for the food court in this new design. May have missed it though.

I dont find the walk from Cunard to the market to be particularly bad. Its not that far. Nice wide sidewalks. I usually stop in at Garrison on the way through. Its a non issue for me.

As to encouraging people to explore the market...Is there really anyone in Halifax who doesn't know it exists? There is already lots of advertising. The front facade to me is a nice design and welcoming. Lots of glass. If a person is already down there (lets face it, at this time, the market is in a bit of an out of the way location) they are likely there for a reason, like Garrison or the market itself. I dont believe they get many random people in there that just happen to be going by, other than tourists perhaps.

I agree that some semblance of order when it comes to what stall goes where would be a big help. Right now it is a bit flea-marketish. Adopting more of a grocery store style layout and grouping like vendors together would make more efficient use of time while shopping.

I just dont agree with structural changes (and adding to the market's already huge bill) until the market starts to draw more customers, because I feel that the structure of the building is not the reason the market is failing through the week.

Personally, I love the market, and want it to succeed, but I think that they are focusing on the wrong thing.

[Hali87]

Good lord. Does Phil Pacey actually think the train station is in danger of being demolished? It's A: Heritage-designated, and B: Still in use as a train station. It's a lot more likely that the enormous, awful Atlantic Superstore site would be redeveloped to something less suburban in character.

Meanwhile, there are historic buildings in real, imminent danger of being demolition, and Pacey is completely silent on that.

I actually agree with Pacey on this one - I don't see why the height limits on the hotel and train station should go up? They seem unrelated. Superstore I get.

If the height limits on the hotel and train station do end up being increased, then I think there should be provisions to prevent outright demolition and make sure additions are sensitive to the existing buildings.

I think there actually is a real risk that the train station could be torn down, depending how things play out with commuter rail and VIA service. There's a lot of concern that VIA will pull out of Halifax completely following its recent service reductions.

[someone123]

I actually agree with Pacey on this one - I don't see why the height limits on the hotel and train station should go up? They seem unrelated. Superstore I get.

It is a complete red herring. It's absurd to focus on height limits when City Hall is carelessly handing out demolition permits and encouraging demolition with its tax system. HRM creates economic pressure to demolish heritage buildings regardless of whether or not they can be replaced with 7+ storey buildings. Barrington in fact used to have a 7 storey heritage building at George Street that is now a parking lot!

The biggest problem right now is that the heritage registration process is owner-initiated, and even registered buildings can be demolished after a 3 year waiting period. Pacey's unfocused complaining is counter-productive. The city would be much better off if all the attention went to actual buildings and provincial legislation to fix the registration process.

[ILoveHalifax]

Every change that comes along in this city seems to have to meet the approval of Phil Pacey.
He proudly presents himself as the great saviour of the city dating back to when he and company stopped the demolition of the waterfront and Harbour Drive, and the Arm bridge.
We have a city now that has stagnated over the decades with very little downtown development. I am not advocationg that we should have taken the alternative (Harbour Drive, etc) but we really have no idea what the city might look like today had we taken that approach. We could be a vibrant city of 650,000 population with lots of good paying jobs. We will never know.
However, as much as we have a great city with a few problems what we have is not working. Barrington, Granville and Hollis have practically no retail and are lined with empty buildings and storefronts. Scotia Square is a small remnant of what it once was. Granville Mall, Historic Properties and Maritime Center are mainly empty. Those business' that do survive seem to hang on until hope runs out. Very few people live downtown, even less shop downtown.
We have a few office towers and a street or two of bars and a boardwalk used mainly for a few months in the summer.
Yes, I am excited about the new construction. It will take more than these new developments to really change downtown because without people they will be empty storefronts in a few years. We are not going to get any kind of density in renovated three story buildings.
We need a huge amount of imagination to make Halifax a great city.

[fenwick16]

Every change that comes along in this city seems to have to meet the approval of Phil Pacey.
He proudly presents himself as the great saviour of the city dating back to when he and company stopped the demolition of the waterfront and Harbour Drive, and the Arm bridge.
We have a city now that has stagnated over the decades with very little downtown development. I am not advocationg that we should have taken the alternative (Harbour Drive, etc) but we really have no idea what the city might look like today had we taken that approach. We could be a vibrant city of 650,000 population with lots of good paying jobs. We will never know.
However, as much as we have a great city with a few problems what we have is not working. Barrington, Granville and Hollis have practically no retail and are lined with empty buildings and storefronts. Scotia Square is a small remnant of what it once was. Granville Mall, Historic Properties and Maritime Center are mainly empty. Those business' that do survive seem to hang on until hope runs out. Very few people live downtown, even less shop downtown.
We have a few office towers and a street or two of bars and a boardwalk used mainly for a few months in the summer.
Yes, I am excited about the new construction. It will take more than these new developments to really change downtown because without people they will be empty storefronts in a few years. We are not going to get any kind of density in renovated three story buildings.
We need a huge amount of imagination to make Halifax a great city.

Good post - I agree.

Stopping the Harbour Drive was a big plus for the city. However, the North West Arm Bridge should have been built and should be built. It would get truck traffic out of downtown Halifax and, if routed properly, the trucks would have a direct passage out of the city.

I often wonder if Halifax would be over 600,000 now if not for the Halifax explosion (which is not related to Phil Pacey). I wonder how many decades of population growth that Katrina has set New Orleans back? (I think Katrina has set New Orleans back by at least 20 years in terms of population, I think the great explosion had a similar effect on Halifax - it set the population back by 20 years since a couple of decades were required just to get the city back to where it was)

[Drybrain]

We need A: Developers who understand the economic value of well-preserved heritage to their projects, B: heritage designations that can be instigated by the government or by citizen lobby, and C: a city council with the legal authority (and the will) to tell developers "no," in no uncertain terms, about innappropriate demolition.

I think Pacey is so obsessed with height limits as a preservation tool because he just doesn't want to see tall buildings. Sounds simple, but I think it's true. Pacey, in my opinion, is a menace to heritage preservation in the city--with the HT as our defacto heritage-advocacy group, nobody else is bothering to take up the fight. And we need someone else to do it--someone who's not so obsessed with height limits, and who's willing to work with government and developers to come to mutually agreeable outcomes, not just argue against every single project that comes down the pipe.

Anyway, if the VIA station were ever threatened (I think it's unlikely), let's all promise to mount a big anti-demolition campaign.

[fenwick16]

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I can't see why the Atlantic Superstore and Via Station area should have a 10.668 meter building height limit. Are there any real heritage properties in this area? Just because it is adjacent to Cornwallis Park isn't a suitable reason. Having highrises around The Halifax Public Gardens hasn't destroyed the Public Gardens.

[ILoveHalifax]

I am not sure if I would want to save the train station or not. I think we need to be open to all possibilities. If we were to build something of much greater value, design, purpose, or iconic, I would certainly consider all options.

[haligonia]

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I'd definitely be in favour an anti-demolition rally if something were ever to happen to the train station. I do support development in some cases, but I also support the careful and purposeful preservation of our heritage. I'm not passionate about development, I'm passionate about this city; Halifax has so much potential to become a truly amazing city, but to reach that potential requires more than just new buildings.

[Phalanx]

I think you're on your own on that one, Fenwick. Most people here have advocated the protection of heritage buildings at one point or another. It all depends on what and why.

[someone123]

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

There are plenty of empty lots and mediocre buildings in Halifax that provide an opportunity for development without having to tear down buildings like the train station. I think the "development vs. heritage" dilemma in Halifax is completely false. It is at least partly a invented by Pacey and groups like STV who use heritage preservation as a pretext for NIMBY lobbying. In the process they have hurt new development and heritage buildings.

We need A: Developers who understand the economic value of well-preserved heritage to their projects, B: heritage designations that can be instigated by the government or by citizen lobby, and C: a city council with the legal authority (and the will) to tell developers "no," in no uncertain terms, about innappropriate demolition.

Part of the problem is that, as far as heritage protection goes, the city has roughly the same ad hoc dynamic that used to exist before HRM by Design. There should be reliable, systematic preservation of buildings of heritage value in HRM, not a patchwork of indirect rules.

[MeEtc]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, so I'll add it in here. The Raddison Hotel is currently undergoing major renovations that started in January. The re-opening is estimated to be in May, but I'm not sure if that will be met. The 3 harbour facing rooms on each floor have been demo'd and 4 new rooms are being built in their place. The lobby is getting an overhaul as well. Ryan Duffy's in the ground level is not affected and remains open.

[Drybrain]

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I can't see why the Atlantic Superstore and Via Station area should have a 10.668 meter building height limit. Are there any real heritage properties in this area? Just because it is adjacent to Cornwallis Park isn't a suitable reason. Having highrises around The Halifax Public Gardens hasn't destroyed the Public Gardens.

I think there are a lot of people around here who are invested in built heritage. Development doesn't have to be at odds with preservation. We don't live in a blank slate; we live in a city that has a been building itself for hundreds of years, and a lot of it is working fine as-is, and should be kept. It's about determining what's good and what's not, aesthetically and functionally. (For example: A development that involved destroying the train station would be unacceptable. A development that involved destroying the Superstore, or incorporating into a more urban template, would be WONDERFUL.)

[fenwick16]

I'd definitely be in favour an anti-demolition rally if something were ever to happen to the train station. I do support development in some cases, but I also support the careful and purposeful preservation of our heritage. I'm not passionate about development, I'm passionate about this city; Halifax has so much potential to become a truly amazing city, but to reach that potential requires more than just new buildings.

I think the Via Station is worth saving but having several blocks that includes open parking lots with a ridiculously low height limit isn't the way to do it.

In order for the Halifax area to become a truly amazing city then one of the things that it does need is new development and a significant amount of it. I believe in having a mix of old and new but even at its current size, probably well less than 5% of the urban core of Halifax/Dartmouth consists of significant heritage buildings. If new buildings are going to be limited for the sake of trying to preserve the areas surrounding heritage buildings then this is equivalent to promoting urban sprawl.

In any case, I stand by my assertion that it would be very tough to organize an anti-demolition rally on this forum even if there were a proposal to demolish the VIA Station, which I wouldn't want either. How many on this forum were opposed to the Nova Centre? Most on this forum were opposed to the groups trying to stop the Nova Centre (and I cheer all the ones who did oppose these groups).

[fenwick16]

I think there are a lot of people around here who are invested in built heritage. Development doesn't have to be at odds with preservation. We don't live in a blank slate; we live in a city that has a been building itself for hundreds of years, and a lot of it is working fine as-is, and should be kept. It's about determining what's good and what's not, aesthetically and functionally. (For example: A development that involved destroying the train station would be unacceptable. A development that involved destroying the Superstore, or incorporating into a more urban template, would be WONDERFUL.)

I agree with what you have stated, I just don't think that there would be a big turnout for an anti-demolition rally to save the VIA Station (from this forum). Perhaps university students would go?

If there were a proposal to demolish the Province House or Citadel Hill then I would attend an anti-demolition rally :). After all, the VIA Station is only 80 years old - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia_railway_station. I think that there is more heritage associated with the old Halifax Forum but I doubt that people would turn out to save it from demolition.

[Phalanx]

...
In any case, I stand by my assertion that it would be very tough to organize an anti-demolition rally on this forum even if there were a proposal to demolish the VIA Station, which I wouldn't want either. How many on this forum were opposed to the Nova Centre? Most on this forum were opposed to the groups trying to stop the Nova Centre (and I cheer all the ones who did oppose these groups).

You're comparing apples to oranges. Being in favour of building a significant piece of city infrastructure on an empty lot does not equate to being in favour of demolishing a heritage building.

[haligonia]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Being in favour of building a significant piece of city infrastructure on an empty lot does not equate to being in favour of demolishing a heritage building.

I agree. With all due respect Fenwick, I think you need to open your eyes and start thinking a bit more critically about the issue at hand. All heritage preservation isn't necessarily bad and all new development isn't necessarily good.

[Drybrain]

I agree with what you have stated, I just don't think that there would be a big turnout for an anti-demolition rally to save the VIA Station (from this forum). Perhaps university students would go?

If there were a proposal to demolish the Province House or Citadel Hill then I would attend an anti-demolition rally :). After all, the VIA Station is only 80 years old - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia_railway_station. I think that there is more heritage associated with the old Halifax Forum but I doubt that people would turn out to save it from demolition.

Oh, I don't mean a literal rally--I meant "rally" in the abstract, like contact local councillors, petition, propose alternatives to developer, etc. Make the displeasure known generally. Although, if someone were to (hypothetically) propose demolishing it, and someone else (hypothetically) organized an actual protest, I might go. God, that sounds apathetic. I'm just not a very protest-y person. Anyway, the station is literally attached to the hotel, and I don't really foresee a time when rail service stops altogether, so I think there are more pressing heritage matters to be concerned about.

As far as what Fenwick said, ditto to Phalanx's response. I'm not really pro- or anti-development so much as pro-city building. Depending on the site in question, sometimes that means demolition and new construction, sometimes that means leaving as-is, and sometimes that means adaptive re-use of what's already there.

The latter has become widely accepted by planners, though convincing developers of its wisdom can often be an uphill battle. It sometimes costs more, but it usually results in extremely desirable structures. Look at the AGNS, or the NS Power building renovation, or the Wychwood Barns in Toronto, or any church/factory loft conversion you can name. People love that stuff and it makes cities subtly but tangibly more desirable. And that's good for the economy, and everything else.

[kph06]

Two from today of the Arthur Street rebuild:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8563647964_947780295a_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8085/8562540641_f4e81d3a83_b.jpg

[Keith P.]

Every change that comes along in this city seems to have to meet the approval of Phil Pacey.

That is largely a media creation. The media are naturally lazy and none too smart, so when a figure like Pacey comes along who is always available to decry any proposed development they are attracted like ants at a picnic. His ego has been inflated as a result but in reality he has very little influence.



He proudly presents himself as the great saviour of the city dating back to when he and company stopped the demolition of the waterfront and Harbour Drive, and the Arm bridge.

We have a city now that has stagnated over the decades with very little downtown development. I am not advocationg that we should have taken the alternative (Harbour Drive, etc) but we really have no idea what the city might look like today had we taken that approach. We could be a vibrant city of 650,000 population with lots of good paying jobs. We will never know.
However, as much as we have a great city with a few problems what we have is not working. Barrington, Granville and Hollis have practically no retail and are lined with empty buildings and storefronts. Scotia Square is a small remnant of what it once was. Granville Mall, Historic Properties and Maritime Center are mainly empty. Those business' that do survive seem to hang on until hope runs out. Very few people live downtown, even less shop downtown.

We have a few office towers and a street or two of bars and a boardwalk used mainly for a few months in the summer.

Yes, I am excited about the new construction. It will take more than these new developments to really change downtown because without people they will be empty storefronts in a few years. We are not going to get any kind of density in renovated three story buildings.

We need a huge amount of imagination to make Halifax a great city.

I posted something similar a while back. My main difference of opinion is that I am less sure that Harbour Drive would have been a bad thing. I am among the minority who are unimpressed with what our waterfront has become, a tacky, touristy ripoff that attracts a few tourists a few months of the year and is largely deserted otherwise. Who can say what we would have there now if it had been built. The city could well have gone in a far more prosperous direction without the stasis that the heritage groups have caused over the years. We have a long way to go to reach our potential.

[someone123]

That is largely a media creation. The media are naturally lazy and none too smart, so when a figure like Pacey comes along who is always available to decry any proposed development they are attracted like ants at a picnic. His ego has been inflated as a result but in reality he has very little influence.

Yeah, I think people assume too much from reading Herald articles. Pacey seems more like a source of easy content than anything else.

I partly agree about the waterfront. I wonder why people in Halifax aren't more upset that there has only been, as far as I know, 1 major WDC-led development over the past 15 years (Bishop's Landing). Many people in Bedford questioned the slow pace of development there too -- that is a town that has been growing like a weed and again they get a couple of waterfront condos every 10 years.

The boardwalk and tourist huts are fine but they do not make a neighbourhood. Hopefully with the changes at the WDC we will see faster tangible progress. The website is full of interesting looking plans but they've been churning these out for years and few of them are implemented.

[eastcoastal]

I think they should hold off on any investments until they start to gain support through the week.

I don't think it's going to be viable 7 days a week in its current location for quite some time. It's not "on the way" anywhere. Meaning, it isn't convenient enough to stop by on the way home from work. That could be just my particular shopping habits, but I don't go to the market unless it's Saturday, and I make a trip JUST to go.

I've been twice during the week, and it was a ghost town.

[Keith P.]

I don't think it's going to be viable 7 days a week in its current location for quite some time. It's not "on the way" anywhere. Meaning, it isn't convenient enough to stop by on the way home from work. That could be just my particular shopping habits, but I don't go to the market unless it's Saturday, and I make a trip JUST to go.

I've been twice during the week, and it was a ghost town.

They made just about every mistake you could make in retail development. Bad location, inadequate parking, no complementary development nearby, poor signage, bad interior layout. It is going to take a miracle for that to become a destination on its own.

[fenwick16]

Barrington Street height limit increase considered

Proposal will affect Westin Nova Scotian, Via Rail and Atlantic Superstore

CBC News
Posted: Mar 15, 2013 9:41 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2013 12:00 PM AT

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-heights-8col.jpg
This lot on the corner of South and Hollis streets has been vacant since a fire two years ago. (CBC)

The Halifax Regional Municipality is considering increasing the height limit for several properties at the south end of Barrington Street, including a lot that has been vacant since a fire two years ago.

Although the current height restriction on the site is 45 feet or approximately 13.7 metres, planners with the municipality want to change that to nearly 22 metres — approximately seven storeys.

Waye Mason, the councillor for Peninsula South Downtown, said the lower height restriction was kept in place while new rules were developed for the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District near the street's south end.

But some historical buildings at the corner of South and Hollis streets had to be demolished after faulty wiring sparked a fire two years ago — the lot has been vacant since.

Mason said he doesn't think the previous height restrictions need to be in place for a vacant lot.

...

Phil Pacey, of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the proposal alarms him.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-height-limit.html

------

I wonder if Phil feels another parking lot better complements the train station and rounds out Cornwallis Park?

I think Phil Pacey has made this issue sound like a threat of demolishing the VIA Train Station. But in reality it is a matter of re-considering the height limits within this area and setting limits that are reasonable.

I did the following sketch of the current HRM_by_Design post-bonus height limits on a Google map screen capture. Some of these height limits are unrelated to heritage protection and don't even make sense.

http://imageshack.us/a/img521/1451/googlemapwithheightlimi.jpg

For example, why is the Westin Hotel located within a 10.668 meter height limit? Why is the Atlantic Superstore within this height limit? If the goal is to protect the VIA Station then why not just have a special height limit for that particular area of the map?

I think that most people will think that I must have sketched the height limits on the Google Map incorrectly. Please double check this section of the HRM_by_Design bonus-height limit map below and let me know if there is an error in my sketch (I checked it several times).

(source: close-up of Map 5 in this document - http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf )
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/1105/postbonusheightlimitfor.jpg

[scooby074]

I don't think it's going to be viable 7 days a week in its current location for quite some time. It's not "on the way" anywhere. Meaning, it isn't convenient enough to stop by on the way home from work. That could be just my particular shopping habits, but I don't go to the market unless it's Saturday, and I make a trip JUST to go.

I've been twice during the week, and it was a ghost town.

I agree 100%. As I said it is out of the way..

Could that "several" hundred thousand be used to address this in some way? I think that would be a better use than installing garage doors (etc.)

Maybe advertising. Maybe more buses running past the doors? Maybe a dock for the new water taxi to Kings Wharf? Maybe a water taxi from Bedford or by the Casino? I dont know what the solution is, but garage doors and new stairways aren't it. We need bodies in there buying groceries. No buyers=no vendors, no vendors=no buyers. A chicken and the egg situation.

As to the location, I think its great to embrace the waterfront, but one has to wonder, was this facility built for Haligonians to get their daily groceries or eye candy for waterfront tourists and cruise ship passengers?

[eastcoastal]

...

Could that "several" hundred thousand be used to address this in some way? I think that would be a better use than installing garage doors (etc.)

...

I think the only ways that the market itself can address the terrible location would be to either wait until there is more development around it, canvas the city aggressively to improve vehicular and transit access, and fight for adding residential nearby; or move.

...
Maybe advertising. Maybe more buses running past the doors? Maybe a dock for the new water taxi to Kings Wharf? Maybe a water taxi from Bedford or by the Casino? I dont know what the solution is, but garage doors and new stairways aren't it. We need bodies in there buying groceries. No buyers=no vendors, no vendors=no buyers. A chicken and the egg situation....

I would say that advertising wouldn't make much of a difference. I would say that most people know that it is there, and I don't know what could be done to convince potential shoppers that it's actually convenient.

Busses and water taxi could help, but all the market itself can do is ask for that stuff. If I lived at Kings Wharf, I'd probably shop at the market on the Dartmouth side.

Garage doors and stairways won't help the location. But they could go a long way toward making it less aggravating once a person has committed to driving there, finding a parking spot, and entering.


As to the location, I think its great to embrace the waterfront, but one has to wonder, was this facility built for Haligonians to get their daily groceries or eye candy for waterfront tourists and cruise ship passengers?

I vote for built as eye candy.

[Keith P.]

The entire thing was a good idea that was terribly mismanaged from the start. For example, the justification for spending the $10 million or so on a new facility was that it would be open 7 days a week. Everybody loved that idea. But apparently nobody bothered to ask the vendors since they only want to be there one day a week like it always used to be. Then once it opened a bunch of vendors stayed at the old location because of some sort of dispute with the management. So you couldn't even get agreement on that and as a result you have both competition down the street and a diluted product to offer at the new facility. Then of course you have the design problems that have plagued it from the start. God knows how this is going to turn out now that the Port Authority has taken it over but I am surely glad I didn't invest my money here.

[someone123]

The Granville Island market is open 7 days a week in Vancouver, but it is mostly dedicated retail outlets reselling products. It is basically like a Pete's. It's substantially quieter during the week and is a mad house on weekends when tourists show up mostly to buy prepared foods and crafts/jewellery, etc. If you are a local, you learn not to go there on the weekend.

The "real" farmers' markets in Vancouver are places like the Trout Lake market and I think those are only open on Saturdays. That is where you get the actual farmers setting up booths and selling their own products. It is a more utilitarian outdoor setup with lots of parking, space for trucks, and temporary booths. They operate an outside market by Nat Bailey Stadium even in the winter months here.

I get the feeling the Halifax market is trying to be at least 2 different things, and is trying to appeal to different types of consumers who have different needs. Cruise ship passengers for example are not going to buy 4 kilos of blueberries or a chicken. They will buy ready-to-eat food or gift items like jewellery and alcohol. I won't be surprised if the seaport market shifts toward being more of a Granville Island with a somewhat separate solution for the farmers.

[halifaxboyns]

I don't think the farmers market was that bad; but it's had problems. Anything new does - so I'm willing to cut them some slack. But I do agree that the City and the market could've worked together better to facilitate more people getting to it via public transit. I think that part came after, with the route 8 and that during market hours it could run a bit more to help promote the market part.

That said - if we ever get a streetcar network or an LRT network - my hope would be that the market/train station would be a major stop. For example: If we had both an LRT (similar to Vancouver or Calgary) and then a streetcar network my hope would be that the train station would be a principle stop for the LRT (say going across the harbour with a future 3rd harbour connection to Woodside/Penhorn and the Portland Corridor). Then the surface streetcar network could be coming out of downtown via Hollis, loop around the station down Barrington and under the tracks and back inbound to downtown via Lower Water and behind the train station right by the market.

[RyeJay]

If we had both an LRT (similar to Vancouver or Calgary) and then a streetcar network my hope would be that the train station would be a principle stop for the LRT (say going across the harbour with a future 3rd harbour connection to Woodside/Penhorn and the Portland Corridor). Then the surface streetcar network could be coming out of downtown via Hollis, loop around the station down Barrington and under the tracks and back inbound to downtown via Lower Water and behind the train station right by the market.

And in mentioning a 3rd harbour crossing, that has prompted my curiousity about when the public will get an update. The last series of documents pertaining to HRM's traffic congestion speculated that a third crossing would be needed by 2016, if I remember correctly.

Tick, tock...

[halifaxboyns]

And in mentioning a 3rd harbour crossing, that has prompted my curiousity about when the public will get an update. The last series of documents pertaining to HRM's traffic congestion speculated that a third crossing would be needed by 2016, if I remember correctly.

Tick, tock...

Your guess is as good as mine. The last thing I recall seeing that went to Regional Council was when Uteck was still on council as the South End Councillor and it was 2 potential options - bridge or tunnel. It's been posted before and I'm sure I could find it if I go digging - but Uteck freaked and had it taken off the agenda. All that staff was asking for was direction on when the time came - what option was preferred. But as I recall, the tunnel/bridge options did not incorporate any potential for an LRT.

I'm suggesting that as the time ticks down to the need, we need to take the opportunity to incorporate it so that even if we don't build it as the crossing comes on line, if it should say get funding 5 years down the road, we can do it. Rather than not incorporate something and then realize 5 years down the road - oops we probably should've done that!

[Drybrain]

Your guess is as good as mine. The last thing I recall seeing that went to Regional Council was when Uteck was still on council as the South End Councillor and it was 2 potential options - bridge or tunnel. It's been posted before and I'm sure I could find it if I go digging - but Uteck freaked and had it taken off the agenda. All that staff was asking for was direction on when the time came - what option was preferred. But as I recall, the tunnel/bridge options did not incorporate any potential for an LRT.


I'm reminded of Toronto's early 20th-century commissioner of public works, R.C. Harris. In 1919 he oversaw the building of the Prince Edward Viaduct to span the east and west sides of the Don River. Even though there were no plans for a subway (Toronto's first subway line didn't open until 1954) he insisted that the bridge be built with capacity for a subway track.

It took almost 50 more years for the Bloor-Danforth subway line to open in 1966, but without Harris' insistence on spending a little extra money at the time, creating an east-west link would've been enormously more expensive, and might not have happened, at least not when it did. Harris is a hero of Canadian civic infrastructure, for that and a whole bunch of other projects (including a palatial late Victorian sanitation facility in Toronto's east end.) If he'd been around through the latter half of the century, Toronto might not be in half the transit pickle it's in today.

Anyway, the Viaduct is a cautionary infrastructure tale: Build the next harbour crossing with capacity for an LRT, whether we use it at the time or not. Otherwise, it'll be nothing but buses across the harbour for the rest of our lives, and any rail we do build will be routed all the way around Bedford Basin.

[RyeJay]

Otherwise, it'll be nothing but buses across the harbour for the rest of our lives, and any rail we do build will be routed all the way around Bedford Basin.

Holy nightmare...

[RyeJay]

Your guess is as good as mine. The last thing I recall seeing that went to Regional Council was when Uteck was still on council as the South End Councillor and it was 2 potential options - bridge or tunnel. It's been posted before and I'm sure I could find it if I go digging - but Uteck freaked and had it taken off the agenda. All that staff was asking for was direction on when the time came - what option was preferred. But as I recall, the tunnel/bridge options did not incorporate any potential for an LRT.

I'm suggesting that as the time ticks down to the need, we need to take the opportunity to incorporate it so that even if we don't build it as the crossing comes on line, if it should say get funding 5 years down the road, we can do it. Rather than not incorporate something and then realize 5 years down the road - oops we probably should've done that!

I agree. Given the city's current rate of growth, I don't believe we'll have to wait much longer before moans for a third crossing begin attracting more media attention.

A third crossing isn't going to cheap; I wonder if it'll be prioritised above a stadium? I realise it's common for a city to have numerous large projects 'on the go' simultaneously, but I will reiterate my lack of faith in our municipal and provincial politics to work together to get numerous projects done -- or, even one project done in a timely manner. I wouldn't be surprised if 2016 were to come and pass without the city creating a plan for another harbour connection.

It's moments like this when I wish the federal government had a plan (and prepared financing) for vital infrastructure that cities need. There does seem to be ignorance, on the part of HRM council, about the benefits of numerous modes of public transit that can be brought to a city's economy, even though other Canadian cities fully realise these benefits...

[someone123]

I am not sure what projections they used for the 2016 third crossing figure, but it's worth noting that HRM's assumptions about growth rates in Halifax have been way too conservative. I think the city is now nearing the "max" population it was expected to have by 2020 or so. And of course it's already probably too late for 2016 because a bridge takes several years to plan and build.

It would be interesting to see what LRT would add to the cost of a third crossing. My impression is that for Toronto-style heavy rail subways you have to build in a lot of extra capacity, but that LRT and streetcars aren't much different from diesel buses.

I've heard that the Macdonald bridge can't handle the weight of heavy trains, but LRT in place of car lanes might work. The car capacity would be diminished but there would be the new 3rd crossing and the MacKay.

I also think a Northwest Arm bridge makes a ton of sense to build. It would make even more sense with a third crossing.