Ultramodern Architecture desired for the HRM

[fenwick16]

I would like to start a thread regarding examples of ultramodern architecture that people would like to see in Halifax.

Here is one example of a modern proposal (source username=alien at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=337770&page=2 ). Located in Bratislava, Slovakia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislava ). I just picked this at random because I like the design with lots of open space in the centre of the proposed building. I am not an expert on architecture, I just like the appearance of this building.

I wonder if this would be allowed to be built in HRM based on HRMbyDesign bylaws?

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/7827/clipboard389fg.jpg

[planarchy]

I would like to start a thread regarding examples of ultramodern architecture that people would like to see in Halifax.

Here is one example of a modern proposal (source username=alien at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=337770&page=2 ). Located in Bratislava, Slovakia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislava ). I just picked this at random because I like the design with lots of open space in the centre of the proposed building. I am not an expert on architecture, I just like the appearance of this building.

I wonder if this would be allowed to be built in HRM based on HRMbyDesign bylaws?

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/7827/clipboard389fg.jpg


This looks like a bad version of the Koolhaas / OMA CCTV building in China:

http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/shanghailaine/cctv_building.jpg


Would it fly in Halifax? Well that's an impossible question to answer. But if a proper site was available, I would hope so. But buildings like this have large floor plates and for that matter alone, could not be accommodated in the core. May look nice near Pier 21 area though - offering a nice frame to the view that is so cherished by HT. This is why context and site selection is so crucial. Unfortunately the international style of architecture suggests that a tall glass tower can go anywhere, and this just isn't the case.

[planarchy]

This looks like a bad version of the Koolhaas / OMA CCTV building in China:

http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/shanghailaine/cctv_building.jpg


Would it fly in Halifax? Well that's an impossible question to answer. But if a proper site was available, I would hope so. But buildings like this have large floor plates and for that matter alone, could not be accommodated in the core. May look nice near Pier 21 area though - offering a nice frame to the view that is so cherished by HT. This is why context and site selection is so crucial. Unfortunately the international style of architecture suggests that a tall glass tower can go anywhere, and this just isn't the case.

I'm going to quote myself here :notacrook:

But maybe this is the way to protect the viewplanes - a convention centre to frame the view. Imagine something like this at the site of the Aliant building. Now that would be a spectacular view from the Citadel!:cheers:

[fenwick16]

I am disappointed planarchy. I thought you might agree with me on something. Anyway, I like the top version the best. The China version just looks very unattractive to me.

[fenwick16]

I'm going to quote myself here :notacrook:

But maybe this is the way to protect the viewplanes - a convention centre to frame the view. Imagine something like this at the site of the Aliant building. Now that would be a spectacular view from the Citadel!:cheers:

Really, I wish they would just forget the views and allow modern architecture throughout downtown Halifax. Have it based on design instead of height.

[kinkydawg]

I've always loved the look of the Gherkin in London. It'd be awesome to see it on these shores

[halifaxboyns]

Really, I wish they would just forget the views and allow modern architecture throughout downtown Halifax. Have it based on design instead of height.

I don't think the viewplanes will go anywhere; anytime soon. But what should be removed is the clause in the Halifax Peninsula MPS; which is the policy that Save the view and the Heritage Trust use all the time (or at least consider re-wording it):

"6.2 The City shall continue to make every effort to preserve or restore those conditions resulting from the physical and economic development pattern of Halifax which impart to Halifax a sense of its history, such as views from Citadel Hill, public access to the Halifax waterfront, and the street pattern of the Halifax Central Business District."*

Now that policy is pretty open and I would love to read the original commentary on that policy from when it was adopted to understand the principle. The back end of the statement to me means to restore access to the waterfront which may have been taken away through the industrial development which occured in the 50's (which has mostly occured; except for the miltary dock yards) and to restore the block pattern of the downtown - Mainly the Metro Centre and Scotia Square. But the first part - is so open to interpretation. I read it 6 times and had some co-workers read it - if read literally; it almost says to turn back the clock and encourage any big developments which may have impacted Halifax's history, access to the waterfront or the views to be removed. How economically bad is that?

* from the Halifax Peninsula MPS - HRM website.

[someone123]

The MPS is not a very well-written document.

To me, it looks like they had the same debate back then and rather than resolve it at the time they decided to just write vague policies everybody could agree with. That kind of thing is actually terrible since you end up fighting the same battle 100 times over instead of figuring it out in the beginning.

[halifaxboyns]

The MPS is not a very well-written document.

To me, it looks like they had the same debate back then and rather than resolve it at the time they decided to just write vague policies everybody could agree with. That kind of thing is actually terrible since you end up fighting the same battle 100 times over instead of figuring it out in the beginning.

I've worked in the planning profession for almost 10 years now and I've seen policy documents written all over the place. I have to say; that one clause has been killer and it really difficult to understand.

Although I have seen worse. At some point HRM will need to go back and review the plan - from my experience, most plans and bylaws should be reviewed every 5 years and a total re-write every 25. Considering the peninsula Bylaw is from the 90's and some of the other bylaws originals back to the 70's (not joking) - a re-write is probably long overdue. I'd actually say a complete consolidation would be a good idea - one for the urban area and one for the rural.

[halifaxboyns]

I wanted to restart Fenwick's discussion on modern architecture for a momment.

There has been a lot of discussion about the evolution of International Place; from it's original project diagrams to a more modern steel/glass construction. What I want to focus on is the old proposal for a minute; or at least a component of it.

As I believe myself (and a few others pointed out) on the old proposal; on the podium component (I believe Barrington Street side); there are these steel slanted archiectual features - almost a roof; but using steel cross beams.

They are used a lot in Vancouver and i've always thought that make a building look very interesting and are a great accent feature. We've talked about 'the feel' of Halifax and we don't seem to agree that there is any one style for Halifax; but I'd like to see more of these features pop up on buildings.

This is a streetview link of Robson Street in Vancouver (just west of the Library) and as you go up and down the street - you can see many of the newer buildings have these features in various shapes and styles.

I really like them - as they can be great to incorporate signage into and also provide some shelter (to a certain extent).

Robson Street (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Vancouver&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=34.136126,67.587891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&ll=49.280072,-123.117267&spn=0,0.003079&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=49.279926,-123.117585&panoid=20Qkfl0DQpX_hY3_VMnLag&cbp=12,101.72,,0,-1.51)

[fenwick16]

I wanted to restart Fenwick's discussion on modern architecture for a momment.

There has been a lot of discussion about the evolution of International Place; from it's original project diagrams to a more modern steel/glass construction. What I want to focus on is the old proposal for a minute; or at least a component of it.

As I believe myself (and a few others pointed out) on the old proposal; on the podium component (I believe Barrington Street side); there are these steel slanted archiectual features - almost a roof; but using steel cross beams.

They are used a lot in Vancouver and i've always thought that make a building look very interesting and are a great accent feature. We've talked about 'the feel' of Halifax and we don't seem to agree that there is any one style for Halifax; but I'd like to see more of these features pop up on buildings.

This is a streetview link of Robson Street in Vancouver (just west of the Library) and as you go up and down the street - you can see many of the newer buildings have these features in various shapes and styles.

I really like them - as they can be great to incorporate signage into and also provide some shelter (to a certain extent).

Robson Street (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Vancouver&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=34.136126,67.587891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&ll=49.280072,-123.117267&spn=0,0.003079&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=49.279926,-123.117585&panoid=20Qkfl0DQpX_hY3_VMnLag&cbp=12,101.72,,0,-1.51)

I actually like slanted skyscraper roofs such as proposed for the TD Bank expansion (if it ever happens) and the old International Place proposal. Here is an extreme case - the whole structure is slanted. If only something like this could have been built in Halifax. This was built about 50 years ago, about the same time as Scotia Square. It is only 530,000 square feet (smaller than the Purdy's Wharf complex, Scotia Square Complex and much smaller than the Nova Centre proposal). The source for the Transamerica Pyramid is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/SF_Transamerica_full_CA.jpg/250px-SF_Transamerica_full_CA.jpg

[someone123]

The cantilevered canopies are really attractive. Glass awnings are also great because they provide shelter from rain and snow but let in light. They are fairly common in Vancouver though not ubiquitous.

This thread on Hamburg I think shows a level of urban design that is a cut above the norm in Vancouver or Halifax, although many of these buildings are older: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=183546

As I commented in that thread, they have arcades big enough to actually walk in or set up outdoor seating for restaurants. These show up in Halifax (Bishop's Landing, Salter's) but they have never been executed properly.

Transamerica is not quite 50, it was finished in 1972. I've never seen it in person but it's true that something of that scale is not totally out of the question in Halifax. I think it's very sad that HRM by Design and other planning documents have set up an 83 m height limit - it seems backwards to me to set that kind of blanket requirement before you even know what the design of a tall building might be. There are designs over 83 m in Halifax that would be great and it goes without saying that there are plenty of short, terrible buildings. Halifax has many that manage to be ugly and harmful at only two or three storeys.

[fenwick16]

You are right. My mistake, it is less than 40 years old. I was thinking of it as a 60's building.