General Updates and News [Archive] - Page 45

halifaxboyns

Mar 18, 2013, 2:43 AM

The regional plan expected 425,000 by 2031. But the models used are based on the circumstances at the time and it seems to me that by around 2006 (when the RP was nearing approval) the economic circumstances for HRM changed and began getting stronger. The population influx also changed and got stronger. Those sort of projection models are really tough to be accurate on, considering that a ship contract (or something similar) is a 1 off and you have no way of knowing when it would hit!

I suspect that if you had to prioritize a bridge over a stadium, the stadium would fail. But it will also depend on if there is private money that wants to get involved in the stadium or not. Also, keep in mind that the crossing of the harbour would likely involve Provincial $ and would be controlled by the Harbour Bridge Commission; which would also have some $ to put in. So because the crossing would be tolled; the leverage of the projected revenue might actually help with the costs - then again, I'm not an economist. :)

someone123

Mar 18, 2013, 5:37 AM

ILoveHalifax

Mar 18, 2013, 1:59 PM

Essentially, until we build a south bridge and an Arm bridge we are only using half of our road capacity. Mornings as far as the peninsula goes everybody is commuting south from the bridges and south east from the 3 western access routes. Our north bound lanes are basically empty. Evenings we all travel north to the bridges and north west to the exits from the peninsula.

I think a southern bridge and Arm bridge could include LRT providing high speed to the suburbs, following the Circumferential and Northwest Arm Drive and Bicnetennial. This could be fed by stops and buses intersecting at Main St, Portland St, Mount Hope, Pleasant, Purcells Cove, Herring Cove, St Margaret's Bay Road, Lacewood, Kearney Lake Rd, Larry Uteck, Hammonds Plains, etc.

Further down the road a twin MacDonald bridge would allow 2 lanes in each direction and a LRT in each direction to serve the inner city areas.

RyeJay

Mar 18, 2013, 4:45 PM

Here's an article by Waye Mason about improvements that are needed downtown: http://halifaxmag.com/2013/03/features/the-case-for-downtown/

The public realm improvements downtown are, I think, the #1 quick/easy thing the city could improve right now. It's incredible how regional council has neglected the downtown area since amalgamation (almost 20 years ago!).

And regional council may be fine with another 20 years of downtown neglect. Wayne is quite right about core investments being a hard sell to suburban and small town Nova Scotians. They see projects like the new Central Library and the Nova Centre, and think: Alright, downtown, that's enough investment for you for a while...

It's difficult to convince these people of the necessity for streetscape improvements, green space, public transit, etc...

Wayne's article also mentioned that Cogswell will be coming down in the next four years?!...

Drybrain

Mar 18, 2013, 5:00 PM

Wayne's article also mentioned that Cogswell will be coming down in the next four years?!...

Yeah, where'd that number come from? I wasn't aware there was a timeline. That would be amazing.

someone123

Mar 18, 2013, 5:06 PM

It would be great. I guess 4 years is possible, but I remember the same sort of timeline being given in 1998 or so.

Complaining about downtown needing new sidewalks after council just funded the convention center is like complaining that your house needs a new roof even though you just redid your kitchen. The two things are unrelated.

The article also alludes to the fact that the downtown area is disproportionately important. A "fair" council would therefore give it a disproportionate amount of attention. It's not at all equivalent to another Bedford or Sackville that is just "spoiled". It's a major economic driver of the region, not a bedroom community.

halifaxboyns

Mar 18, 2013, 6:51 PM

I think Waye's article is a good start to getting the new council thinking; although really it's not all that much of a new council. That said, it's provoking discussion and I think Rye is right - there is this idea that a couple things happen, okay that's good enough. Well the reality is that good enough just doesn't work when it comes to the core, we need to go further...

One of the things I think the Regional Centre plan might address (I'm hoping) would be the issue of streetscape improvements. I go back and look at comments that Larry Beasley made when it came to the Vancouver model and the fact he said it takes considerable financial investment to build in Vancouver. Well - similar financial investments should be made in HRM; but proportionately scaled of course. When a new application comes in for the DT or Regional Centre; it should be automatic that a review of the sidewalks/curbs etc is done and if needed, new ones are provided by the Developer. If it happens to be a corridor, then perhaps part of the bonusing is that new street trees or sidewalks are provided? Or better yet wider sidewalks to promote more pedestrian activity?

It's all possible - we just have to think about the city we want to have when we grow up. That's the key to this equation; realizing that HRM is growing up and into a mature mid-sized region (500,000+ soon). It's all part of an evolution in the planning system and I think that's happening; although sometimes a little slower than many would like it seems.

The density bonusing system is about leveraging private money to obtain public benefit; so if we are trying to create a streetscaping program for designated locations or the DT area; then it should be a part of the system. Same with any of the identified corridors in the RC plan. That can be how you actually sell the program to council - we would need X dollars as 'seed money', but likely get back in bonusing X dollars.

someone123

Mar 18, 2013, 8:17 PM

Density bonusing can be good but the municipality also has to provide value for tax dollars collected downtown.

Getting developers to pay for sidewalks downtown while council foots the bill for road projects in the suburbs is just another example of a disparity that encourages development in the suburban office parks.

Dmajackson

Mar 19, 2013, 1:07 AM

From Councilor Watt's email;

Redevelopment at Isleville and Bilby Developer Meeting – March 21

Onyx Properties, GENIVAR and WHW Architects invite the public to a Developer Open House regarding the potential redevelopment of 2859-2863 Isleville Street, Halifax to be held at Bloomfield Centre, 2786 Agricola Street on Thursday March 21 from 6:30 to 9:00pm (neighbourhood walk 6:30 to 7:00 pm, Meet/Greet 7 to 7:30, Presentation 7:30 to 8:00 and design workshop from 8-9:00 pm. The proposal is in the early stages of the design process and a development application has not yet been submitted. Before the final design, residents are asked to share ideas and provide input. If you are unable to attend, or have questions, please contact Jeffry Haggett at GENIVAR (902) 835-9955, or by email at jeffry.haggett@genivar.com

Phalanx

Mar 19, 2013, 9:00 PM

RyeJay

Mar 19, 2013, 10:05 PM

For anyone who may be interested, CBC Radio (Mainstreet, specifically) is hosting a public forum on the future of the Cogswell Interchange next Wednesday at their Bell Rd. site.

Audio will be on the radio, video will be streamed.

?!...

Perhaps Wayne's article, claiming the Cogswell Interchange would be removed within the next four years, was privy to some insider info?

haligonia

Mar 19, 2013, 10:53 PM

?!...

Perhaps Wayne's article, claiming the Cogswell Interchange would be removed within the next four years, was privy to some insider info?

I hate correcting people, but it's Waye, not Wayne. :P

worldlyhaligonian

Mar 19, 2013, 11:24 PM

Could they not fix the street pattern easily?

RyeJay

Mar 19, 2013, 11:31 PM

I hate correcting people, but it's Waye, not Wayne. :P

:) I need to work on that.

spaustin

Mar 26, 2013, 2:17 AM

I hadn't heard of this one before, but there's a small infill project in the works for Gerrard Lodge at Barrington and Harvey. They're going to convert the old place to condos and build an addition on the back parking lot. The report is coming before the Heritage Advisory Committee on Wednesday.

http://s19.postimg.org/i016de6hf/Gerrard_Lodge.jpg
http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/documents/GerrardReport.pdf

Not a major project, but it'll restore a heritage building and a bunch of small infill projects like this can add up to a lot if there's enough of them. I like the garage doors! So much better than the absolutely ugly new building around the corner on South

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.639903,-63.570939&spn=0.001492,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=44.639865,-63.571068&panoid=SNdWd9zpMs6UhlF0vzeGfg&cbp=12,327.42,,0,3.4

someone123

Mar 26, 2013, 2:41 AM

This project has actually been around for a long time, in various incarnations. There was a DA poster up on the building maybe 5 years ago. I believe the small addition/townhouse attached to the left of this building has a different owner. It was restored some time ago and a similar addition was built on the back.

Not a fan of the garage doors but actually if they are done well they're not always so bad. Right now the back part of the lot is just parking and the house itself is in rough shape.

I would love to one day see good an overhaul of the "Snappy Tomato Pizza" vinyl-clad building on the corner of Morris Street, the small parking lot next door, and of the unfortunate beige Victorian across the street.

someone123

Mar 27, 2013, 10:18 PM

Breakhouse has some renderings of some renos for the Bank of Montreal ground floor along a currently somewhat dysfunctional stretch of Lower Water Street. Nothing earth-shattering but they look good and I could see all of these improvements (TD, Scotia Square, Barrington Place) adding up and making the downtown (financial district?) a bit more pedestrian friendly and modern feeling. Streetscaping work along Barrington would complement this stuff nicely. There's also Cable Wharf, which would be great, but I am not sure that there are concrete plans to move forward with those improvements anytime soon.

http://breakhouse.ca/33839/1175107/all/bmo-at-5151-george-street

http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles8/574369/projects/7402231/hd_bbf0e1891e3ff4ee1e452674329bb4c5.jpg

Drybrain

Mar 28, 2013, 1:29 AM

Look at all those people chillin' at the bank.

teddifax

Mar 28, 2013, 2:09 AM

Whatever happened to the plans to renovate both the BMO building and the Royal Bank together by the same developer of the TD bank site.

someone123

Mar 28, 2013, 2:20 AM

Look at all those people chillin' at the bank.

It does seem unlikely, but another rendering shows some type of restaurant or bar above.

By the way, another piece of news: it looks like Mickey MacDonald isn't going to move forward with his plans to redevelop Mills. I'm not sure what this means for the Chickenburger site. Is it going to sit as a parking lot for 5+ years now? If so, wow, what a waste..

Drybrain

Mar 28, 2013, 2:26 AM

It does seem unlikely, but another rendering shows some type of restaurant or bar above.

By the way, another piece of news: it looks like Mickey MacDonald isn't going to move forward with his plans to redevelop Mills. I'm not sure what this means for the Chickenburger site. Is it going to sit as a parking lot for 5+ years now? If so, wow, what a waste..

So bizarre. I heard (though I have no idea if it's true) that he's now looking to sell the properties as well. What a bunch of abrupt reversals and switchbacks that was.

someone123

Mar 28, 2013, 2:30 AM

So bizarre. I heard (though I have no idea if it's true) that he's now looking to sell the properties as well. What a bunch of abrupt reversals and switchbacks that was.

Hopefully the SGR buildings will stay and a residential building will go up on the former Chickenburger site (maybe with a new Chickenburger), covering all of the surface parking up to the Starbucks building.

pblaauw

Mar 28, 2013, 3:22 AM

There was some Salvador Dali-esque turquoise melted street lights art installation being, uh, installed on the old helipad at Bishop's Landing, across from The Bicycle Thief, this afternoon.

Too bad it's not in front of The Trillium. :haha:

haligonia

Mar 28, 2013, 10:52 AM

It does seem unlikely, but another rendering shows some type of restaurant or bar above.

By the way, another piece of news: it looks like Mickey MacDonald isn't going to move forward with his plans to redevelop Mills. I'm not sure what this means for the Chickenburger site. Is it going to sit as a parking lot for 5+ years now? If so, wow, what a waste..

Good news, I think. I'd rather keep that bit of streetscape intact than let a careless businessman put up a cheap money-making apartment building. I hope the site gets what it deserves in the future.

Jonovision

Mar 28, 2013, 1:34 PM

A crane has gone up somewhere along Windmill Rd. Saw it from the bridge yesterday. I'm guessing it is for the new military building.

Drybrain

Mar 28, 2013, 2:32 PM

Hopefully the SGR buildings will stay and a residential building will go up on the former Chickenburger site (maybe with a new Chickenburger), covering all of the surface parking up to the Starbucks building.

That'd be the ideal scenario.

Of course, the Mills store is supposed to be moving into Spring Garden Place, right? Which means new tenants will have to be found, since the Mills Store is no longer in the Mills Building, giving us a nice empty stretch of SGR with an uncertain future. Thanks, Mickey!

OldDartmouthMark

Mar 28, 2013, 2:42 PM

That'd be the ideal scenario.

Of course, the Mills store is supposed to be moving into Spring Garden Place, right? Which means new tenants will have to be found, since the Mills Store is no longer in the Mills Building, giving us a nice empty stretch of SGR with an uncertain future. Thanks, Mickey!

Didn't they just do a major renovation to the Mills store? Why move the business from a newly-renovated, streetside, familiar location to a place where it will likely see less customer traffic?

I must be missing something here, as this doesn't seem to make much sense to me on the surface. :shrug:

Maybe the Chickenburger will move into the Mills store? :haha:

Drybrain

Mar 28, 2013, 4:26 PM

Didn't they just do a major renovation to the Mills store? Why move the business from a newly-renovated, streetside, familiar location to a place where it will likely see less customer traffic?

McDonald sold the business but retained the building, which he planned on redeveloping (I assume demolishing and rebuilding on the site). The store's new owners then planned to move the business into SGR Place.

Then Mickey tore down the Chickenburger to accomodate phase 1 of the development.

But then he suddenly decided, for whatever reason, to cancel the whole thing. Which is good, in a way, since it hopefully means SGR won't lose one of its most intact historic stretches of street-facing retail to some poorly considered block-busting demolition. (It seems ridiculous that such a proposal would even have been approved, but I bet it would've.)

I must be missing something here, as this doesn't seem to make much sense to me on the surface. :shrug:

Me neither!

coolmillion

Mar 28, 2013, 4:53 PM

I don't think it will be difficult to find new tenants for the Mills building, although it may need more renovations to create the right layout. It is my understanding that there are a number of retail chains that have been wanting to open on SGR for years but have been unable to find appropriately sized (ie large) vacant spaces. I imagine Mills is large enough to house a couple major stores. This block already has Lulu Lemon and American Apparel, plus others across the street and the library... good company!

OldDartmouthMark

Mar 28, 2013, 5:21 PM

McDonald sold the business but retained the building, which he planned on redeveloping (I assume demolishing and rebuilding on the site). The store's new owners then planned to move the business into SGR Place.

Then Mickey tore down the Chickenburger to accomodate phase 1 of the development.

But then he suddenly decided, for whatever reason, to cancel the whole thing. Which is good, in a way, since it hopefully means SGR won't lose one of its most intact historic stretches of street-facing retail to some poorly considered block-busting demolition. (It seems ridiculous that such a proposal would even have been approved, but I bet it would've.)

Me neither!

Thanks for the play by play, now I know the story. I agree that it's a good thing the original Mills building has a chance to survive... would be a great thing if a popular chain not currently in Halifax could find a home there. That building would be a really interesting space for the right retailer.

someone123

Mar 28, 2013, 5:49 PM

Yeah, my guess is that there will be interest from high-end tenants similar to Lululemon. A cynical view would be that it was actually convenient to get Mills to move.

In any case I hope something is done with the Chickenburger lot.

eastcoastal

Mar 28, 2013, 9:40 PM

...

But then he suddenly decided, for whatever reason, to cancel the whole thing...

His quote in AllNovaScotia was something along the lines of: I woke up at 3am on Monday and decided I was rushing this.

RyeJay

Mar 28, 2013, 10:01 PM

His quote in AllNovaScotia was something along the lines of: I woke up at 3am on Monday and decided I was rushing this.

:haha:

:koko:

Dmajackson

Mar 29, 2013, 12:19 AM

Developer eyes Spring Garden project
March 28, 2013 - 7:58pm BY REMO ZACCAGNA BUSINESS REPORTER

A Halifax developer is working on plans for a new mixed-use development on Spring Garden Road that could include condominiums and a hotel.

Danny Chedrawe, who heads Westwood Developments Ltd., owns six properties on a block bounded by Doyle, Queen, and Brunswick streets and Spring Garden Road.

He said his plans for that block include a project that could be as high as seven storeys, that could possibly house retail, condominium, and hotel space.

A transaction that saw Chedrawe purchase the building at 1478 Queen St. from DHX Media Ltd. closed on Feb. 28, more than a month after a bidding period for the property was launched.

...

(rzaccagna@herald.ca)

Read More: thechronicleherald.ca (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1120141-developer-eyes-spring-garden-project)

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 1:24 AM

Great, Chedrawe. The man who plans to tear down the OTHER jewel of a block on Spring Garden, right across the street, who doesn't seem to get that redevelopment doesn't necessitate demolition, and whose developments are among the most awful-looking in town.

Forget Schmidtville. We need a Spring Garden heritage-conservation district, pronto, or there won't be anything much left to conserve in a couple of years. There's so much land ripe for development in this vicinity, and these two want to knock down some of the best existing structures. Small-town developers with no vision.

At least the projects don't appear imminent. Still--really unfortunate that these two guys own so much of the street. This is a marquee area, and deserves developers who can operate on a more sophisticated, big-city level than these amateurs.

someone123

Mar 29, 2013, 1:40 AM

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 1:45 AM

I don't think it's a big town/small town thing. There are developers in NYC who would tear down anything to make a buck. Really this comes down to public planning and incentives. The city as a whole has to decide what's worth saving and has to build those constraints into an economic model that works.

For Spring Garden Road the economic model would be pretty simple because buildings like Mills/Lululemon are already enormous cash cows.

Yeah, I'm just thinking of T.O./Van. I can't imagine a developer proposing to tear down a whole block of Queen West, say, which SGR is probably the closest analogue to. It just would never fly; they wouldn't even bother trying.

(In case it wasn't clear, i wasn't accusing Hali of being a small town, but Chedrawe of being a small-thinking developer. Though he does seem to be into the infill/mixed-use...just too bad his projects are so bad.)

someone123

Mar 29, 2013, 2:00 AM

They tear down unique historic buildings in Toronto and Vancouver all the time. Queen Street itself is full of mangled old buildings and ugly newer ones. Yonge is another disaster zone of questionable urban planning. Halifax is analogous to Toronto in terms of how it has developed post-WWII and how it has (mis)handled heritage preservation. The unfortunate difference is that Toronto has grown into a major city whereas Halifax's heritage buildings are still one of its strongest assets (and it was more historic to begin with).

Vancouver's heritage preservation as far as I can tell is largely NIMBY-oriented. In other words, people fight to preserve their neighbourhood streets while commercial buildings are torn down. Halifax has the same problem.

Some Boston neighbourhoods like the North End or Back Bay seem to have working preservation rules. They are not exactly affordable (part of why you know the rules work -- developers would love to build tons of condos in these places) but they're on a level beyond anything in Canada: http://goo.gl/maps/UxvmW

Cities like Boston make it clear just how dumpy most Canadian cities are.

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 2:41 AM

They tear down unique historic buildings in Toronto and Vancouver all the time. Queen Street itself is full of mangled old buildings and ugly newer ones. Yonge is another disaster zone of questionable urban planning.

That's totally true, but I think most of that mangling is a legacy of decades past. Honestly, I can't recall a single major tear down (excepting facadectomies and fires) in the past several years in T.O, not since Y-D Square was built. Certainly nothing on the magnitude of eliminating an entire block from the landscape. I'm not a huge fan of the way Toronto's developing with ultra-density downtown and little elsewhere, but looking at the arterial avenues in the inner city, developers are largely working around the Victorian structures, or incorporating them, even for modestly scaled projects.

I honestly think that if someone came along and said he was gonna knock down everything on the block between, say, Spadina and Soho streets along Queen, people would be outraged. (Or even a chunk similar in size to the stretch of SGR under discussion.) The Star would have it on the front page the next day along with a big feature about the city's built heritage. The Chronicle-Herald, by contrast, would have a puff piece about Spring Garden's impending facelift.

Cities like Boston make it clear just how dumpy most Canadian cities are.

Oh boy, that's true.

fenwick16

Mar 29, 2013, 7:41 AM

I honestly think that if someone came along and said he was gonna knock down everything on the block between, say, Spadina and Soho streets along Queen, people would be outraged. (Or even a chunk similar in size to the stretch of SGR under discussion.) The Star would have it on the front page the next day along with a big feature about the city's built heritage. The Chronicle-Herald, by contrast, would have a puff piece about Spring Garden's impending facelift.

I have lived in the Toronto area for 30 years now and I can honestly say that I have never heard heritage being discussed on the radio or in the newspaper. Overall, it seems to be a non-issue in the Toronto area. Torontonians like to think big and big projects get the most positive press. I won't say that it has had all positive results - negative examples are high taxes in Toronto, cost over-runs for the Skydome, the Gardiner Expressway, and others. The positive effect is national and international attention as a major city.

I think that heritage protection is important in the Halifax area but only if it is balanced; not everything old should be saved, and areas surrounding heritage buildings should marked for development. Regarding the Doyle, Queen, Brunswick, Spring Garden Road block, I hope the plan isn't to demolish all of these buildings - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf6jzw9q1vc9&lvl=19.26&dir=358.97&sty=b&where1=Halifax%2C%20NS&form=LMLTCC. However, developers must make money whereas heritage protection is a municipal and civic responsibility. Tax credits and grants can be allocated to developers to encourage heritage restoration as is being done on Barrington Street.

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 1:12 PM

I have lived in the Toronto area for 30 years now and I can honestly say that I have never heard heritage being discussed on the radio or in the newspaper. Overall, it seems to be a non-issue in the Toronto area. Torontonians like to think big and big projects get the most positive press. I won't say that it has had all positive results - negative examples are high taxes in Toronto, cost over-runs for the Skydome, the Gardiner Expressway, and others. The positive effect is national and international attention as a major city.

I definitely disagree on that. There are loads of Torontonians mighty tired of the same glass condo tower being erected over and over again. Here are eight different stories in the Star that discuss built heritage over the past couple years, and it took me about 20 seconds to find them all. One is from today. 1 (http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/03/28/skyscraper_autopsy_city_devolution.html), 2 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/01/saving_torontos_heritage_buildings_the_smart_way.html), 3 (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/02/22/architects_turn_to_adaptive_reuse_to_save_heritage_buildings.html), 4 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/01/08/historic_buildings_the_problem_with_preservation.html), 5 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/01/historic_king_street_buildings_face_demolition_if_mirvishgehry_project_gets_green_light.html), 6 (http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2012/03/30/yorkville_heritage_building_holds_its_own.html), 7 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/01/05/hume_heritage_remains_a_burning_issue_in_toronto.html), 8 (http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/04/12/toronto_condo_boom_how_heritage_is_at_risk_as_old_toronto_is_transformed_by_the_new.html).

The sheer amount of development in the city has led to a lot of concern for what could be lost--but, really, not much has been in recent years, considering all the new construction.

However, developers must make money whereas heritage protection is a municipal and civic responsibility.

Yeah, that's the traditional roles they occupy, but a lot of good developers see their role as city builders as well. In this case, Chedrawe doesn't seem to care about the fact that existing buildings are historically valuable (and just plan good, useful buildings that are extremely successful at that location). and the city has a pitiful history of protection. Not a combo to make one optimistic!

Keith P.

Mar 29, 2013, 1:29 PM

ILoveHalifax

Mar 29, 2013, 1:48 PM

I'd be quite happy to see most everything on Spring Garden Rd come down and be replaced. There is nothing there of any great value in my opinion. I especially would be happy to see the old Bank of Montreal building leveled rather than try to add on to it. About the only building of any interest is the one or two on the corner of SGR and Brunswick but not sure it is worth saving.

fenwick16

Mar 29, 2013, 1:51 PM

I definitely disagree on that. There are loads of Torontonians mighty tired of the same glass condo tower being erected over and over again. Here are eight different stories in the Star that discuss built heritage over the past couple years, and it took me about 20 seconds to find them all. One is from today. 1 (http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/03/28/skyscraper_autopsy_city_devolution.html), 2 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/01/saving_torontos_heritage_buildings_the_smart_way.html), 3 (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/02/22/architects_turn_to_adaptive_reuse_to_save_heritage_buildings.html), 4 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/01/08/historic_buildings_the_problem_with_preservation.html), 5 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/01/historic_king_street_buildings_face_demolition_if_mirvishgehry_project_gets_green_light.html), 6 (http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2012/03/30/yorkville_heritage_building_holds_its_own.html), 7 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/01/05/hume_heritage_remains_a_burning_issue_in_toronto.html), 8 (http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/04/12/toronto_condo_boom_how_heritage_is_at_risk_as_old_toronto_is_transformed_by_the_new.html).

The sheer amount of development in the city has led to a lot of concern for what could be lost--but, really, not much has been in recent years, considering all the new construction.

It is easy to cherry pick stories to support a certain view. I could post hundreds of recent stories showing civic pride in new, tall architecture. There are old, loved buildings in the Toronto area such as Maple Leaf Gardens that have been preserved and redeveloped but there isn't any great outcry for heritage protection and a limit on new development. I can say this because I listen to Toronto area news everyday.

If you wish to pick examples then I think that Montreal or Quebec City would be much better choices than Toronto. Torontonians tend to pride themselves as being residents of a world class, modern city not as residents of a historic city.

fenwick16

Mar 29, 2013, 2:02 PM

I am surprised to read all the wringing of hands over the Mills buildings. Notice I said buildings because that's what they are - a number of old structures stitched together in a way that makes their interior a rabbit warren of uneven floors, low ceilings, and disjointed spaces. As rentable space, they suck. So one can only presume the angst is about their faux-Tudor exterior, which is admittedly a somewhat unique thing for Halifax, but really is just cosmetic. You could duplicate that as the podium for anything you wish to build above if you had to, though I really wonder why anyone would bother except to appease the heritage loons that think they run this town.

I like this idea. I like the Spring Garden Road streetscape but I realize that the city must grow. Your suggestion is a practical way of doing it and has had success in other parts of the city; examples are Founder's Square, Espace and RBC Waterside.

A Toronto example is the old Maple Leaf Gardens. The exterior has been preserved but the interior now has this current layout - http://www.urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/12/database-project-day-ryersons-peter-gilgan-athletic-centre

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 2:24 PM

I am surprised to read all the wringing of hands over the Mills buildings. Notice I said buildings because that's what they are - a number of old structures stitched together in a way that makes their interior a rabbit warren of uneven floors, low ceilings, and disjointed spaces. As rentable space, they suck. So one can only presume the angst is about their faux-Tudor exterior, which is admittedly a somewhat unique thing for Halifax, but really is just cosmetic. You could duplicate that as the podium for anything you wish to build above if you had to, though I really wonder why anyone would bother except to appease the heritage loons that think they run this town.

That's probably not a bad approach to the Mills Buildings, IMO. Surprise! I agree with you on this. As to "why they would bother", again, heritage is a valuable economic resource. If they marketed it right, they could probably extract more money for space "in the historic Mills Building," blah blah.

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

hollistreet

Mar 29, 2013, 2:38 PM

That's probably not a bad approach to the Mills Buildings, IMO. Surprise! I agree with you on this. As to "why they would bother", again, heritage is a valuable economic resource. If they marketed it right, they could probably extract more money for space "in the historic Mills Building," blah blah.

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

Yorkville and Hazelton

fenwick16

Mar 29, 2013, 2:52 PM

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

I think Keith P.'s approach is most similar to what is happening in Halifax and some other cities. Buildings aren't being kept in their original state and restored, instead facades are kept and the interior of the buildings are expanded with new construction. An example in Toronto is the BCE Place (now the Brookfield Place) - http://www.higginsarchitect.com/BCE2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Place

An example of the negative consequences of taking an impractical view to heritage protection can be seen in Brantford, Ontario (acres of historic blocks were demolished) - http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/08/ontario-city-seeks-to-demolish-historic-street-despite-ottawa%E2%80%99s-objection/ . The Brantford city council just got fed up with a crumbling, historic section of town that was becoming deserted and decided to demolish buildings that were condemned. (I lived in Brantford for 3 years).

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 3:44 PM

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

That's totally true, but I'm sure that those buildings on SGR are financially sustainable--they're certainly not crumbling into dust like the ones in Brantford.

The point is, there's nothing wrong with the block, it works wonderfully from an urban POV, it's attractive, and has historic value. There's no reason in the world to tear it down except that a redevelopment might be MORE profitable for Mr. Chedrawe. But as citizens, we have the right to say: profit is not the ultimate end-game. We want a great city, and profit, while crucial, must be balanced with other concerns.

And to Hollisstreet: The Hazelton demolition didn't involve a whole block, it was a side street, not a commercial artery, there was huge outcry about it, and they saved part of the facades (which is not always good enough, but anyway). I might also add that it lies within one of Toronto's dozens of heritage-conservation districts.

ILoveHalifax

Mar 29, 2013, 5:44 PM

That's totally true, but I'm sure that those buildings on SGR are financially sustainable--they're certainly not crumbling into dust like the ones in Brantford.

The point is, there's nothing wrong with the block, it works wonderfully from an urban POV, it's attractive, and has historic value. There's no reason in the world to tear it down except that a redevelopment might be MORE profitable for Mr. Chedrawe. But as citizens, we have the right to say: profit is not the ultimate end-game. We want a great city, and profit, while crucial, must be balanced with other concerns.

And to Hollisstreet: The Hazelton demolition didn't involve a whole block, it was a side street, not a commercial artery, there was huge outcry about it, and they saved part of the facades (which is not always good enough, but anyway). I might also add that it lies within one of Toronto's dozens of heritage-conservation districts.

There is not one building in the block that works wonderfully. I have been in the old BoM building and it is really a mess inside. All cut up and steps all over the place. I cannot think of one space that is really efficient. I would find it very frustrating to work in such space on a daily basis.
If Danny owns the land, and wants to improve his bottom line by redeveloping to make a better profit, who are we to tell him, he can't or how to do it.
I hope he levels the block and we get something exciting an up to date.

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 6:38 PM

If Danny owns the land, and wants to improve his bottom line by redeveloping to make a better profit, who are we to tell him, he can't or how to do it.

We're citizens. Private-property is not a trump card in all discussions, which is why there are laws around land use. Take a trip to London, NYC, SF, Boston, are way more restrictive to property owners than we are.

I hope he levels the block and we get something exciting an up to date.

WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

(Also, lest anyone think Toronto isn't rife with NIMBYs, check out these people (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/keep-ossington-lovable) launching vociferous opposition to a six-storey building downtown that would involve demolishing nothing more than a parking lot and a charmless 1950s cube. Ludicrous NIMBYism isn't unique to Halifax, nor is anti-development sentiment.)

ILoveHalifax

Mar 29, 2013, 6:53 PM

We're citizens. Private-property is not a trump card in all discussions, which is why there are laws around land use. Take a trip to London, NYC, SF, Boston, are way more restrictive to property owners than we are.

WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

(Also, lest anyone think Toronto isn't rife with NIMBYs, check out these people (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/keep-ossington-lovable) launching vociferous opposition to a six-storey building downtown that would involve demolishing nothing more than a parking lot and a charmless 1950s cube. Ludicrous NIMBYism isn't unique to Halifax, nor is anti-development sentiment.)

Thank you for your enlightenment. I have been to 3 of your 4 cities and have read a few books before. I still do not agree with your point of view but I do not call you ignorant. Maybe some day you will mature and show some respect for other opinions

fenwick16

Mar 29, 2013, 7:02 PM

WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

You just don't get it Drybrain. It is not what is in a book, it is personal preference. If ILoveHalifax prefers to have the whole block levelled and see something new built then that is his preference not ignorance.

Personally, I would like to see some of the facades incorporated into a new, larger, modern development. But that is just my preference.

Keith P.

Mar 29, 2013, 9:29 PM

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

I like old cars. But your statement is like saying I shouldn't be able to spend my own money on a new car with new technology and efficiency. You want to force me to buy a wreck of an old 1950s car and put big money into it to end up with something that isn't as good in the end as something I could have bought brand-new. That's crazy.

That block on SGR you love has perhaps one building that may be of some interest heritage-wise - the one on the corner that houses Fireside, and which used to be Thackeray's. But it has been modified so much over the years that there isn't a hell of a lot of it left. The rest are even worse. And while the BMO building is sort of nice to look at, as ILoveHalifax said, if you talk to the tenants there they tell you it is a terrible building to work in. It leaks, it has lots of environmental issues, it is dominated by a large central stair. As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property. Unless you are talking about iconic buildings, structures inevitably get replaced. People in this town need to learn to move on and embrace the future rather than fighting it every step of the way.

someone123

Mar 29, 2013, 10:09 PM

As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property. Unless you are talking about iconic buildings, structures inevitably get replaced. People in this town need to learn to move on and embrace the future rather than fighting it every step of the way.

There have been a lot of successful preservation projects in Halifax, like Waterside Centre and Barrington Espace.

I think the key is to focus in on the aspects of these buildings that are most important to the public, and then offer bonuses to developers (like height increases) in exchange for preserving those features. For something like BMO the important features are mostly on the outside, and the building's only a couple of storeys tall, so a developer could redevelop it with 90% new construction while preserving most of what people care about. With a good design it would be possible for the new building to be much better than what's currently there -- the heritage parts would still be 90% there but there'd be more space and amenities for businesses and residents, more taxes for the city, etc.

Halifax hasn't been very successful at this because legitimate heritage preservation has been derailed by people who use it as a pretext for preventing new construction. New construction is the most plausible path to bringing in the money necessary to preserve these assets.

sdm

Mar 29, 2013, 11:22 PM

I think Keith P.'s approach is most similar to what is happening in Halifax and some other cities. Buildings aren't being kept in their original state and restored, instead facades are kept and the interior of the buildings are expanded with new construction. An example in Toronto is the BCE Place (now the Brookfield Place) - http://www.higginsarchitect.com/BCE2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Place

An example of the negative consequences of taking an impractical view to heritage protection can be seen in Brantford, Ontario (acres of historic blocks were demolished) - http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/08/ontario-city-seeks-to-demolish-historic-street-despite-ottawa%E2%80%99s-objection/ . The Brantford city council just got fed up with a crumbling, historic section of town that was becoming deserted and decided to demolish buildings that were condemned. (I lived in Brantford for 3 years).

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

Financial incentives do work, but more recently look at the Waterside project in that no incentives were given and the developer still went ahead with the project.

Drybrain

Mar 29, 2013, 11:31 PM

That block on SGR you love has perhaps one building that may be of some interest heritage-wise - the one on the corner that houses Fireside, and which used to be Thackeray's. But it has been modified so much over the years that there isn't a hell of a lot of it left. The rest are even worse. And while the BMO building is sort of nice to look at, as ILoveHalifax said, if you talk to the tenants there they tell you it is a terrible building to work in. It leaks, it has lots of environmental issues, it is dominated by a large central stair. As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property.

I do love it, it's true. So obviously I disagree with the first part of the statement--the interiors may be in so-so shape, but the exterior still looks pretty handsome. Original doorframes, not ruined with crummy stucco or metal cladding, brick still in good shape...it's really nice, and there are only a handful of structures like it left in town.

As to the second part, I doubt anything on the block is in dire, falling-down disrepair. Like, seriously doubt it. I have heard about the BMO building's woes, but much worse has been brought back from the brink. Hamilton's Lister Block, Toronto's Gladstone and Drake Hotels, our own Historic Properties...oh hell, just go through this amazing thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=203463).

Here's an especially stark before (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5007/5305675964_6c255294e6_b.jpg) and after (http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1002/1261554863_f67ed12c5c_b.jpg) from Montreal.

The buildings we're talking about are definitely in better shape than most of the ones in that thread...just looking at those example right now I'm getting pissed off. Turning away bad projects and insisting on better heritage protection hasn't run business out of those town. Why can't we get that kind of smart, sensitive, intelligent development? Why do we get Danny Chedrawe? (Yeah, I know every city has bad developers, and we have some good ones. But still.)

Oh yeah, and Someone123 is right on that "legitimate heritage preservation has been derailed by people who use it as a pretext for preventing new construction." I'm not kidding when I say that someone needs to run the Heritage Trust out of town and start a real heritage-advocacy group.

someone123

Mar 29, 2013, 11:58 PM

Financial incentives do work, but more recently look at the Waterside project in that no incentives were given and the developer still went ahead with the project.

Sometimes developers' requirements align with what's best for the city. When they don't, a careful balance between the public good and private property rights is required.

I think the situation is too polarized on both ends in Halifax. On the one hand you have the dogmatic property rights people, and other people like some of the CBC forum commentators who seem to think that everything is up to the "public" (which usually means them personally for some reason!). Neither one of these perspectives is a viable way to run a city.

In reality there is no such thing as 100% property ownership, but the city needs to be careful to respect owners out of a sense of fairness and because the owners' investment is essential for the city to function. The easiest way to do this is to craft incentives ahead of time so that developers and the public want the same thing.

RyeJay

Mar 30, 2013, 12:46 AM

delete.

Keith P.

Mar 30, 2013, 2:16 PM

For something like BMO the important features are mostly on the outside, and the building's only a couple of storeys tall, so a developer could redevelop it with 90% new construction while preserving most of what people care about. With a good design it would be possible for the new building to be much better than what's currently there -- the heritage parts would still be 90% there but there'd be more space and amenities for businesses and residents, more taxes for the city, etc.

I understand your point of view. But I don't understand the attachment some people have towards certain things. I think the BMO building is sort of interesting even though it is a pretty bad building functionally and is looking pretty tired with the eyesore of a touristy shack built on an ill-conceived wood deck:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmo1_zps83a0d9da.jpg

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.643395,-63.576078&spn=0.000008,0.003852&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.297189,63.105469&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.643289,-63.575977&panoid=KsMU1upDs7AdHT1LLTssJA&cbp=12,35.45,,0,0

Contrast that with the last render I found of what was proposed and I know what I would take in a split-second - this (view is from the corner of Queen and Doyle):

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmowestwoodrear.jpg

I'm not sure why someone would want to compromise a design for the sake of preserving some rather dull-looking facades. When you do that you end up with something like this:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

Ugh.

fenwick16

Mar 30, 2013, 3:10 PM

I understand your point of view. But I don't understand the attachment some people have towards certain things. I think the BMO building is sort of interesting even though it is a pretty bad building functionally and is looking pretty tired with the eyesore of a touristy shack built on an ill-conceived wood deck:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmo1_zps83a0d9da.jpg

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.643395,-63.576078&spn=0.000008,0.003852&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.297189,63.105469&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.643289,-63.575977&panoid=KsMU1upDs7AdHT1LLTssJA&cbp=12,35.45,,0,0

Contrast that with the last render I found of what was proposed and I know what I would take in a split-second - this (view is from the corner of Queen and Doyle):

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/bmowestwoodrear.jpg

I'm not sure why someone would want to compromise a design for the sake of preserving some rather dull-looking facades. When you do that you end up with something like this:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

Ugh.

I agree with your point of view. I am interested in knowing where the last rendering (above) came from? I haven't seen it before (the BMO expanded one).

I don't think the last rendering should be built but if the facade were saved and the upper levels were setback then it might be more acceptable.

ILoveHalifax

Mar 30, 2013, 4:04 PM

fenwick16

Mar 30, 2013, 4:33 PM

It seems to me that some people think we have reached the ideal when it comes to urban planning.
Much the same, the designers back in the 60s thought they knew all about the future and now we look back and wonder what they were doing.
I wonder how today's concept and developments will be reviewed in 50 years. I fear they will not do so well. I fear we will have cities that have been stiffled. We will have put off some of our infrastructure with the idea that it is not good and we will have a lot of catching up to do.
I hate to think where we would be now if the planners of the 60s had operated under today's principles. For example, had we not built roads back then, let's imagine the metro area without the bridge, the Bicentennial Hwy
(102), Imagine the Bedford Hwy as the only way into the city and everyone backed up at the Fairview Underpass. It used to back up in 1954 so how long would the lines be now? Even if we banned cars it would be an endless line of buses.
Imagine Nova Scotia without our current highways. Highway 2 used to be real slow with an endless line of traffic half way to Truro; what would it be like today.
So let's consider the latest thought in planning but let's not get too confident in ourselves. Today's experiment may need a lot of tweeking yet

I think there is a lot more red-tape today. HRM_by_Design has helped, although some of the height limits are too low (in my opinion, but it can be tweaked). One thing that really hurt Halifax in the 1970's was the view-planes bylaws, which I think was completely unnecessary. HRM_by_Design would have helped Halifax if implemented back in the 1970's instead of the view-plane bylaws.

Unfortunately, the big dreams of Halifax and Nova Scotia seemed to have ended in the 1970's (an example of this was the Atlantic Schooners CFL team in the early 1980's when even a $6 million dollar stadium wasn't supported).

The attitude seems to be changing, which I think is partly because of the internet and the effects of social media. More of the general public can state their opinions. So instead of just a few people in high positions making their opinions known, anyone can make their opinions known. I think the majority of the general public wants progress and not the status quo.

Drybrain

Mar 30, 2013, 4:52 PM

C'mon. At the risk of sounding "disrespectful" again, both of those renderings are atrocities. The one with the bottom half the BMO facade ridiculously appended to is worse; I can't believe it's anything but a joke. People with this kind of aesthetic sense have no business designing buildings--or if they do, it's entirely incumbent upon us to say "Whoa. Not nearly good enough. Try again." That thing would look more appropriate adjacent to a random strip-mall cluster somewhere on the Bedford highway.

Fortunately, neither of those renderings are in the cards, since a new plan is supposed to be unveiled in May, and maybe Westwood will present something less insane.

The thing is, a reasonably sensitive development actually is possible on the block, if little imagination goes into it--the original part of the buildings abutting Brunswick only occupy less than half the depth of the block, so there's room to preserve those while building a taller, contemporary addition behind them. Slice off rear of the old TD Building and ditto. As far as BMO, a lot of people would probably prefer it to be fully restored (especially if we could keep Tom's and the Rogue's Roost in there) but it's got a big footprint, and if Chedrawe wanted to do something like the Discovery Centre project over on Barrington (gut the interior, preserve the lobby, and build a slim tower rising out of it, set back from the existing edge of the building) I wouldn't object. And I think he'd find it an easy pass through council. And more people would be on board with it as an exciting change for the street, not some antiquated block-busting.

But those existing designs are embarrassing. It's third-rate stuff fit for a backwater, not nearly good enough for a central location in a provincial capital. We have excellent architects working in this city, and yet these look like they were drawn up by a general contractor used to designing roadside Tim Hortons outlets. This is why we need strong design review. And better heritage guidelines. And better developers.

Keith P.

Mar 30, 2013, 5:06 PM

I agree with your point of view. I am interested in knowing where the last rendering (above) came from? I haven't seen it before (the BMO expanded one).

I don't think the last rendering should be built but if the facade were saved and the upper levels were setback then it might be more acceptable.

I don't remember where it came from. The date on the file is 2008 but that might be when I loaded it to one of my libraries. It could be older.

fenwick16

Mar 30, 2013, 5:10 PM

The thing is, a reasonably sensitive development actually is possible on the block, if little imagination goes into it--the original part of the buildings abutting Brunswick only occupy half the depth of the block, so there's room to preserve those while building a taller, contemporary addition behind them. Slice off rear of the old TD Building and ditto. As far as BMO, a lot of people would probably prefer it to be fully restored (especially if we could keep Tom's and the Rogue's Roost in there) but it's got a big footprint, and if Chedrawe wanted to do something like the Discovery Centre project over on Barrington (gut the interior, preserve the lobby, and build a slim tower rising out of it, set back from the existing edge of the building) I wouldn't object. And I think he'd find it an easy pass through council. And people would be on board with it as an exciting change for the street, not some antiquated block-busting.

But those existing designs are embarrassing. It's third-rate stuff fit for a backwater, not nearly good enough for a central location in a provincial capital. We have excellent architects working in this city, and yet these look like they were drawn up by a general contractor used to designing roadside Tim Hortons outlets. This is why we need strong design review. And better heritage guidelines. And better developers.

This falls under the HRM_by_Design bylaws. It will likely be approved under the Design Review Committee not through Council. There is far less latitude in terms of design than you seem to think.

This is within a maximum 28 meter zone, so a slender tower is not possible. Here is where the block lies within the HRM_by_Design post-bonus height map: (source: http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf )

http://imageshack.us/a/img706/1309/bmositeonhrmbydesignmap.jpg

Keith P.

Mar 30, 2013, 5:23 PM

The thing is, a reasonably sensitive development actually is possible on the block, if little imagination goes into it--the original part of the buildings abutting Brunswick only occupy less than half the depth of the block, so there's room to preserve those while building a taller, contemporary addition behind them. Slice off rear of the old TD Building and ditto. As far as BMO, a lot of people would probably prefer it to be fully restored (especially if we could keep Tom's and the Rogue's Roost in there) but it's got a big footprint, and if Chedrawe wanted to do something like the Discovery Centre project over on Barrington (gut the interior, preserve the lobby, and build a slim tower rising out of it, set back from the existing edge of the building) I wouldn't object.

But why would anyone want to do that? The TD Building is completely unremarkable. Why worry about saving that or its facade? Maybe the old townhouses closer to Brunswick could have their facades preserved, but again, you are asking for a hugely compromised development if you were to keep the interiors. It would be another Historic Properties/NSCAD campus situation with utterly unrentable space.

As for Tom's and Rogues, c'mon. They are tenants. They could go anywhere. They probably would not want to be in a new modern space. The same with the BMO building - the space inside is terrible so why save it? The city has to evolve and progress. Why would anyone want to keep everything the same old way it has always been? Jeebus!!

someone123

Mar 30, 2013, 5:50 PM

I have a feeling the new design for the BMO block will be much nicer than those older renderings. Gladstone North and the TD building were both much nicer looking than older Westwood buildings.

The "compromised" design with the BMO facade isn't ugly because it included the facade, it's just an ugly design. A creative architect should be able to come up with a great modern design that incorporates parts of the older buildings.

The city has to evolve and progress. Why would anyone want to keep everything the same old way it has always been? Jeebus!!

I would rather see developers start with parkings lots and the worst buildings. The biggest eyesores on Spring Garden Road are along that stretch by Hakim Optical. Of course, developers have to buy these properties first, but it's annoying how many lame duck landowners there are downtown, and I don't think the results will be very good if the nicer buildings along SGR are torn down.

Anyway, it doesn't make much sense to comment on BMO before seeing what will be built.

Drybrain

Mar 30, 2013, 6:38 PM

Maybe the old townhouses closer to Brunswick could have their facades preserved, but again, you are asking for a hugely compromised development if you were to keep the interiors.

Yes, yes, compromise often results in better projects. That's how stuff gets done!

The same with the BMO building - the space inside is terrible so why save it? The city has to evolve and progress. Why would anyone want to keep everything the same old way it has always been? Jeebus!!

Indeed, if he gutted the interior that'd be fine. Besides the lobby, it's the exterior that has real value, but it can't just be slapped on to some ugly slab, it has to be treated sensitively. I don't want things to be the way they've always been; I wanted to conserve what works and change what doesn't. (The townhouse spaces work, by the way. If they're so un-rentable, how come the entire building is occupied right now, including the basements? A lot of bar and restaurant owners actually want space with exposed brick and other historic character elements, and are willing to work around a few extra obstacles to get it.)

Anyway, fenwick, when I said tower I meant a mid-rise, not a high-rise.

It's pointless to argue though. No one is going to change their minds based on internet back-and-forth. Let's just wait 'til the new design comes down the pipe.

kph06

Apr 4, 2013, 7:17 PM

New Renderings of the DRC Building on Windmill & Grove:

http://www.dsra.ca/sites/default/files/styles/large_project_images/public/projects/norm-li-agi-130115_day-2--web.jpg
http://www.dsra.ca/sites/default/files/styles/large_project_images/public/projects/norm-li-agi-130115_dusk-2--web.jpg
Source (http://www.dsra.ca/projects/dnd-drdc-research-building)

Haligonian88

Apr 9, 2013, 1:37 AM

Article on the WDC development in Dartmouth:

Waterfront concept takes shape
April 8, 2013 - 7:06pm BY CHRIS LAMBIE BUSINESS EDITOR

Residential development in Dartmouth planned
http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97167867Z.120130408190241000GEB2MAA5.11.jpg

A chunk of land on the Dartmouth waterfront could soon see construction, according to the Waterfront Development Corp.

The site is currently a parking lot.

“In a perfect world, we’d be putting it out for tender so that a partner could bid on it and we could get moving within the year,” said Colin MacLean, who heads the Crown corp.

“But one of the challenges is we want to provide a clear path for the developers.”

Developers could build up to 10 storeys now on the 0.5-hectare lot between Prince Street and King Street on Alderney Drive. But talks with the city over what would interfere with the view from Brightwood Golf Course could boost that height limit, MacLean said.

A proposal that involved building a 165-unit tower of 15 storeys or more on the property was popular at public meetings, he said.

...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1122266-waterfront-concept-takes-shape

fenwick16

Apr 9, 2013, 2:05 AM

Article on the WDC development in Dartmouth:

Based on the story description, this is directly across from King's Wharf at this location - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Prince+Street+and+King+Street,+dartmouth,+ns&hl=en&ll=44.664689,-63.566095&spn=0.001644,0.004128&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=49.179605,135.263672&hq=Prince+Street+and&hnear=King+St,+Dartmouth,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&fll=44.664574,-63.56595&fspn=0.001644,0.004128&z=19

Now that Dartmouth is getting residential development downtown, maybe Halifax developers will start moving more quickly with residential in downtown Halifax. All this development will really help the ferry traffic.

resetcbu1

Apr 9, 2013, 2:30 AM

Based on the story description, this is directly across from King's Wharf at this location - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Prince+Street+and+King+Street,+dartmouth,+ns&hl=en&ll=44.664689,-63.566095&spn=0.001644,0.004128&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=49.179605,135.263672&hq=Prince+Street+and&hnear=King+St,+Dartmouth,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&fll=44.664574,-63.56595&fspn=0.001644,0.004128&z=19

Now that Dartmouth is getting residential development downtown, maybe Halifax developers will start moving more quickly with residential in downtown Halifax. All this development will really help the ferry traffic.

I would hope so but all this development in Dartmouth could, if played right by HRM(doubt it)..... Bolster the Halifax side of downtown with population if ferry service were not only left alone but much improved or a tunnel link between the two.

scooby074

Apr 9, 2013, 3:41 AM

" interfere with the view from Brightwood Golf Course"

Yes, lets let the old and politically connected Brightwood fogeys decide just how high a building can be built:koko:

Empire

Apr 9, 2013, 4:09 PM

Protecting our view:

The top of the Aliant building would be an excellent location for an observation deck. The deck would be accessed on both sides of the mechanical penthouse. A railing could encompass the perimeter of the building and perhaps there could be a two tier section on the harbour side. There is currently a glass elevator providing a great preview on the way up. There could be a modest charge to cover expenses $2-$5, school age free. I think it would be a huge hit with tourists. For special events like tall ships tickets could be sold for $25 and up. Of course there would be a restaurant on the top floor under the observation deck. Maybe the Heritage Trust would invest?

This could be our own version of Top of the Rock!!

The View:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.646277,-63.578621&spn=0.000015,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.646277,-63.578621&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-43297398

scooby074

Apr 9, 2013, 6:22 PM

Excellent idea Empire.

I think it would be a hit, particularly the restaurant.

OldDartmouthMark

Apr 9, 2013, 6:53 PM

I think it's a cool idea as well.

On the upper deck, perhaps a coffee shop/with liquor license (like the Wired Monk) to help offset the costs of keeping it going would help as well. I think it would be amazing to be able to sip a coffee or beer (or glass of wine) while taking in the view...

The restaurant just below would be a hit as well.

The Brightwood viewplane idea seems a little silly to me.

I will say this, and likely be unpopular for it (as usual), but I did appreciate the Citadel viewplane a couple of weeks ago when I went up there for the first time in a few years. I had never really thought of it before I started reading this forum, but it is quite extraordinary to still be able to have a view of the harbour like this in this day and age (when the trend is to build 'up' in the downtown). That's all I'll say about it as I'm sure I'll take enough flak for it as it is.

Have a nice day, everybody. :cheers:

MeEtc

Apr 9, 2013, 8:07 PM

The problem with doing this, is CSIS has/had some offices on the top floor already, and they have some specialized equipment that's still visible on the roof. So this might not even be possible from a security point of view.

RyeJay

Apr 9, 2013, 11:43 PM

The Brightwood viewplane idea seems a little silly to me.

I will say this, and likely be unpopular for it (as usual), but I did appreciate the Citadel viewplane a couple of weeks ago when I went up there for the first time in a few years. I had never really thought of it before I started reading this forum, but it is quite extraordinary to still be able to have a view of the harbour like this in this day and age (when the trend is to build 'up' in the downtown). That's all I'll say about it as I'm sure I'll take enough flak for it as it is.

Have a nice day, everybody. :cheers:

I enjoy the sight from the Citadel, too. I'll enjoy it even more when the Nova Centre is completed.

I can appreciate the viewplanes as well, but I think there are too many of them. Some of the viewplanes need to be reduce or completely removed to allow for development so that we can have a more viable downtown.

The few that will remain will still give us harbour views -- and since there are fewer of them we will appreciate them all the more. With the number and size of the viewplanes we currently have, there is too much focus on water, when a big part of the Citadel's charm is the surrounding cityscape.

scooby074

Apr 12, 2013, 2:58 AM

The New Palace is closing..

Supposed to be some "renovations" taking place, but no comment as to what is planned.

"The owners of The New Palace Cabaret/ Halifax Alehouse said “demographic changes and industry trends” led to the decision to renovate into a “new and unique concept.”"

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/1122453-new-palace-closing-its-doors

someone123

Apr 12, 2013, 3:03 AM

The Barrington Street renovations for Scotia Square were approved by the Design Review Committee today. Both the Barrington addition and the new Duke Street office building could be started this spring.

Nifta

Apr 12, 2013, 9:46 AM

What's happening on the Barrington St side? Is there a link someone could point me to? Thanks!

*edit*

Google helped me :) http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/130214drc6.1Barrington.PDF

Looks to be an improvement, but I'd hoped it might be a change to the stretch between the corner of Duke along Barrington to the pedway. That sections just a desert. Faceless concrete wall. Oh well, one step at a time.

pblaauw

Apr 16, 2013, 4:36 AM

eastcoastal

Apr 16, 2013, 10:48 AM

There was a notice in today's paper from The Halifax Club, seeking Expressions of Interest in helping them diversify their portfolio/holdings/business. The notice mentions a possible hotel, but allows applicants to bring forth their own ideas.

I guess they've run out of hobnobbing space. :haha:

It's probably more likely that they've run out of enough people willing to pay for hobnobbing in the space they have.

They've been trying to attract younger members for some time now: I have no idea how well that's been going, but if they're looking to redevelop their building, then I'd say it hasn't had the desired effect.

Drybrain

Apr 16, 2013, 2:40 PM

What exactly does the Halifax Club do, as is? As in, what are their holdings and portfolio and activities, etc., besides a bunch of rich folks hobnobbing in a fancy building? What would they do with a hotel? Etc. Genuinely, I have no idea what their deal is, besides being a private business club.

(I doubt they would/could redevelop the building—it's a registered heritage property and seems pretty integral to their whole old-money aristocratic air.)

EDIT: Lookie here. (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/1123660-halifax-club-has-big-ideas) They want to preserve the existing building and add what I guess would be a sort of boutique hotel on top of it. Could be cool, if it's well done. (I would really hope it wouldn't necessitate screwing with the integrity of the building's interior elements, 'cause they look might impressive.)

Coincidentally, there's an almost identical project (http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/19601-Hotel-Victoria-56-Yonge-St-(-8-storey-addition-)) just planned for a mid-rise historical hotel in Toronto.

someone123

Apr 18, 2013, 5:21 AM

The new Mother's Pizza building on Agricola. It's nice to see so many little construction projects happening all over the North End. The big projects get most of the attention, but I think the fine-grained organic growth adds a lot to neighbourhoods.

http://www.motherspizzacanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-04-04-16.27.27-1024x768.jpg
http://www.motherspizzacanada.com/tag/mothers-halifax/

isaidso

Apr 18, 2013, 8:41 AM

Is that a reno or a new construction?

Keith P.

Apr 18, 2013, 10:24 AM

Is that a reno or a new construction?

New. The old Rumley & Johnson building was demolished.

It is unfortunate this was permitted to be built right to the sidewalk on the Young St side. That street badly needs to be widened in that block. HRM missed an opportunity.

spaustin

Apr 18, 2013, 10:06 PM

It's small, but I like it. Could have done with a more modern look instead of the faux-tudor, but it comes up to the curb, has an active corner, multiple doors and good windows. Nice little project.

ILoveHalifax

Apr 18, 2013, 10:44 PM

Looks very hydrostone and why not stretch the neighborhood an extra blook or 2.

Drybrain

Apr 18, 2013, 11:15 PM

Hali87

Apr 18, 2013, 11:16 PM

Looks very hydrostone and why not stretch the neighborhood an extra blook or 2.

I was thinking the same thing; it looks like a direct stylistic transfer from the Hydrostone Market's main building(s). IMO it looks much better than most of the "faux-hydro" buildings that have gone up in the area lately. Garden Stone Place is the one exception, but has its own stylistic elements that make it work better than say the residential building just east of it.

Also reminds me a bit of the building at Windsor and Almon.

eastcoastal

Apr 19, 2013, 11:10 AM

The little peaks are a bit faux-looking (I mean, to be expected: the whole thing is faux) but whatever--it's definitely a step up from the usual purpose-built restaurant building. I wonder if the pizza's any good...

I agree - in general, it's not bad... but those little faux peaks at the windows lower the perceived level of quality.

Duff

Apr 19, 2013, 11:28 AM

Condo project proposed for Dartmouth

Developer Besim Halef is planning a multimillion-dollar condominium project in the central Dartmouth neighbourhood where his two children grew up.

The four-fifths of a hectare lot on Richmond Street, near a new Sobeys and a liquor store, is owned by Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc. and Sobeys Capital Inc. But Halef said he has entered into an agreement with the owners to buy the property, now zoned for commercial use.

“I like the neighbourhood. My children went to Northbrook School,” the president of Banc Properties Ltd. said Thursday.

Northbrook closed as an elementary school in 2004. The Chapman Street building now serves as a community centre and police training facility. There is also a small park nearby.

Halef, an engineer who came to Canada from Turkey in 1975, said his son and daughter grew up on Wyse Road in his first property, which he purchased in 1976.

“We have a lot of good memories over there,” he said. “I lived there for 10 years.”

Right now, Halef plans to build two condominium buildings and townhouses on the site.

Read More - http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1124058-condo-project-proposed-for-dartmouth

Keith P.

Apr 20, 2013, 12:24 AM

The little peaks are a bit faux-looking (I mean, to be expected: the whole thing is faux) but whatever--it's definitely a step up from the usual purpose-built restaurant building. I wonder if the pizza's any good...

I wonder if they are ever going to open. Work seems to have ground to a halt.

someone123

Apr 20, 2013, 1:30 AM

It's good to see that some tentative redevelopment of that area of Dartmouth is happening. It's such a wasted opportunity right now, with Brightwood and the terrible train wreck around the bridge. Is the large toll plaza even necessary now? It seems like having so many lanes merge would actually be a bad thing.

It's a huge waste to have so much empty land in inner Dartmouth while apartment buildings are going up in places like Sackville.

fenwick16

Apr 27, 2013, 12:15 AM

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?

This issue will be considered by HRM Council on April 30th - http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/130430rcAgenda.html. Changing the shaded area in the map to 22 meters seems like a logical choice. It contains a vacant lot, Atlantic Superstore with adjoining surface parking lot, Westin Hotel (which is already over 22 meters) and the VIA Station.

Staff is recommending the change whereas the Design Review Committee is recommending against.

This is the area under consideration:
(source: http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/130430ca1015.pdf )
http://imageshack.us/a/img441/3033/cornwallisparkareapropo.jpg

RyeJay

Apr 27, 2013, 1:34 AM

This issue will be considered by HRM Council on April 30th - http://halifax.ca/council/agendasc/130430rcAgenda.html. Changing the shaded area in the map to 22 meters seems like a logical choice. It contains a vacant lot, Atlantic Superstore with adjoining surface parking lot, Westin Hotel (which is already over 22 meters) and the VIA Station.

Staff is recommending the change whereas the Design Review Committee is recommending against.

For the sake of stronger development in an area that can potential extend the downtown further south -- I want the staff's will to prevail in this case.

Just think of what could be a massive SuperStore redevelopment, using all of that wasteful surface parking, and creating a sidewalk presence as strong as what we see on Spring Garden.

What would a height increase to 22 metres threaten?