[Halifax] Brenton Suites (1452 Brenton) | 49 m | 17 fl | Completed
 

WM Fares is proposing a new residential building for 1448-68 Brenton Street called Brenton Place.

Renderings (full report is here: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/...alDrawings.pdf):

http://imageshack.com/a/img901/1899/Qo7wgJ.png

http://imageshack.com/a/img909/6821/bQmKHk.png

Oh man is that beautiful!! But are we really that dense and low on empty lots that we're at the tearing shit down phase?

We're not THAT low on empty lots, but I still think this is a worthwhile addition to the area. SGR is going to be our modern retail/shopping/resto/entertainment district, with some high end and dense residential. :tup:

It looks fantastic.

I am a big fan of this one since it is so unique and it looks good also. I think it is on the same uniqueness scale as the new Central Library.

The Schmidtville nimbys will go berserk over this one.

What?? tear down a few slums with character to build a beautiful new building?
Where will those few business' go and their rents might go up?
Where will the mice and rats live?
And it is definitely not 'human scale', (2 stories tall).

OK, I'll bite. There are some nice well-kept small wooden buildings on that stretch, their destruction will be a loss. :(

Would have loved to have seen this one on the empty lot on queen street next to the library, it would have been a perfect addition. It looks amazing but I really dont tjink Breton street needs tjis added retail space

I like this one, hopefully it gets approved and built. We need higher buildings to really densify the area (and the city too).

Looks awesome!

As far as I can tell, there are four nice old wooden houses on that stretch, and from the rendering it looks like only three of them will be torn down (moved?), so I think it's quite a good trade-off for what we're getting.

I really do love these old houses, but it seems like Halifax has a fair amount, and this building will be so much more appropriate / beneficial to the SGR area.

Interestingly, this falls inside a side section of Schmidtville.
http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/schmi.../1684/download
(http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/schmidtville/photos/1684)

It looks pretty good and I'm excited about the continuing densification of this district, but I agree with the sentiment that it would be nice to be rid of all the vacant lots before demolishing existing buildings. Though the site is pretty underused at present (giant parking lot in the rear) and I suppose it was only a matter of time.

It would be nice if this building and Trillium could the same parking ramp rather than having two right next to each other (i.e. excavate and punch a hole at the B1 level). It would be less disruptive for pedestrians and free up a bit of additional space for more retail and parking.

Otherwise design-wise it looks great. I love that it's built right up to the street line with continuous shop frontage. I can't take that for granted living in Hong Kong - most new development here fronts the street with blank walls, ventilation grilles, utility rooms - and it really kills the street life.

I'm sure they will... I also think the boundary proposed for Schmidtville probably jogs up Brenton as a way to try and make a pre-emptive strike against such a proposal.

My opinion is that Schmidtville can/should stay low rise, but this site is across the street from Schmidtville and really belongs more to Spring Garden Rd. district.

Basic math mistake in the proposal, there are 170 units, The data table shows 39 units are 1BR +Den, the column lists only 34.
The old rule was 'Check, check again and have another person make a 3rd check' or as a carpenter would say - "Measure twice, cut once".
Next door at The Trillium there remains 9 unsold units.
Too expensive for me but it looks nice.

There is also the proposal for a large building between Brenton and South Park, so all those wooden buildings on Brenton are proposed to be demolished.

Overall I'd say the project is a net positive. Those houses may be nice (definitely not slums or anything) but the density is too low for downtown. My only problem with it is that there are other sites that need the density more. The lot behind the library as the perfect example.

Unfortunately it is hard to coordinate development so that it only happens on empty lots. I'm pretty sure the lot behind the library is owned by Dalhousie and earmarked for development, for example. Developers can only buy what's available and can only develop what they own. The city needs a lot more development than there are perfect proposals so some of the imperfect ones need to move forward too. This one is pretty good.

I think preserving the intact residential area south of Clyde is a nice compromise. North of Clyde is really downtown at this point. It's a high-density area.

It's exciting to think of what Spring Garden will look like if and when all of these developments are completed. It will have a high enough population density and large enough base to support a lot of foot traffic and interesting businesses. It will be like the kind of neighbourhood you'd typically see in a much larger North American city, and it'll be the only one of its kind in the region.

The fact that this is a lot of retail makes for a nice stroll down Brenton and back up South Park, great for shopping. One will not have to walk down South Park and stop and go back the same route. The complete square is much more conducive to attract people.
That is part of the problem with Park Lane; it does not go anywhere.

I wonder if some of the glass will have a pale yellow tint, or if they're just depicting the lighting. I hope it's the former; that would really be a unique feature.

I never did like Park Lane, the best thing they could do is completely redo it. The second level never could support stores. I don't have the solution, but I am sure someone could do a good job there. It ideally would need and anchor at the back of the mall to draw in shoppers and attract stores. Maybe making the back of the mall into a two level store and therefore attract an anchor.

To me the easiest fix would be to put a big entrance from Dresden Row somewhere opposite Pete's so that people would find it interesting to walk thru to SGR.
I doubt their history would attract a major store.

Park Lane could be a nice mall and it's in a perfect location. It just needs a serious investment to bring it out of the sad 1990s.... the way HSC was invested in, upgraded, and given a major renovation. Now, it attracts top end retailers.

Park Lane could do this, but unfortunately, Crombie REIT have let it run down and actually been trying to sell.

A few medium-scale stores that I think would work well in Park Lane or Scotia Square would be Staples (or something similar - electronics and office supplies), Winners (or another larger-scale clothing store; H&M would also work), Giant Tiger (or another small department store), Jysk (or another larger-scale furniture store) and Canadian Tire (or something similar).

Totally. I think these retailers would absolutely turn that place around. It would be a major shopping destination downtown.

Cool proposal for the area. It's interesting how the massing makes it seem more like a midrise than a "tower" at 17 stories. HRMbD encourages buildings divided vertically into 3 sections - does that apply for this site, or does this design somehow meet that criteria anyway?

It would also relate well to the back of the Trillium, which right now looks a bit awkward IMO.

If it was next to the library, it would block the library's only decent view. :koko:

^ That view is completely ruined for me because of the horrible surface parking lot. I'd find a view of this beautiful proposal much more appealing. ;)

Besides, if the wide side was against Queen with the narrow side facing the back of the library, you'd still be able to see past it and beyond to the harbour.

Agreed to all of those. But the store I've really got a craving for a downtown location is Bulk Barn! Although maybe if they made a new Staples, the site on Gottingen could be redeveloped.

The choice view from the library is toward the harbour. Breathtaking. This, alone, should get Keith to eventually love the place. :)

Definitely think these big box need to start thinking of urban formats because Amazon will eventually put them out of business.

Staples would be great to have in Park Lane.

A new downtown Apple store would be an incredibly anchor tenant to turn Park Lane around; but the mall needs a significant renovation.

It's not bad, but it feels too Sad 1990s Mall in there right now.

If there is enough population growth around Spring Garden Road then medium-sized stores will start to become viable. This will only happen if higher density developments like this proposal are built. The old building stock isn't nearly adequate now because it takes a lot more people today to support the same amount of brick-and-mortar retail than it did in 1950, all else being equal.

I agree. Who the heck would think what is there now is a pleasant view :koko:

Totally!

I walked by this area tonight, and realized that this proposal will fit into the odd space in beyond the Trillium perfectly. There's a parking lot and two or three wood buildings, but this will really help build/inject even more density, as somebody123 points out.

I don't even think the Schmidtville NIMBYs will go too crazy, as it's essentially right across from Park Vic, which itself is a bit of a land/property bank between the SGR high density development and the smaller residential further towards the South End in this area.

^The local NIMBY's will still go crazy but this project falls under the Downtown plan so the appeal process is limited.

I personally like this proposal. It's different than we're used to but it should fit in well and the density will be great for the area.

That is good to hear, I like the looks of this one.

You're probably right. Never underestimate the selfish rage of the NIMBYs.

Thank G-d for HRMxD.

I agree with JET that those buildings will be a loss, although admittedly that area is a bit of a mish-mash now. The new building should clean up the area somewhat, and offer much better land usage for the area. Would be nice if the wooden buildings could be moved to another location, but I realize it probably won't happen due to economics.

While many of you laud this building as beautiful, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the beauty so much. To me, it looks more like a kid's Lego build, with disjointed blocks haphazardly put here and there. Then there's that black rectangle on the side that looks like it stuck there after somebody threw it.

Is this considered good architecture these days? :shrug:

Misery loves company. :)

I think the difference is that I don't see anything random or haphazard. If you look closely, the building has near perfect symmetry, with only enough subtle variation as to give it some warmth. The black square toward the top is exactly in the middle of the Brenton St. façade (although it's hard to see it from the angle of the rendering). And the proportions are bang on as well as someone already mentioned. It's tall (for the area), but the setbacks take the edge off making it seem more sensitive to it's surroundings.

Even the colours are harmonious with the tan/grey, charcoal and gold contrasting enough to give some variation but not enough to be jarring. And the pattern created by the common balcony floors and the private balcony floors is consistent. They also strike the perfect balance in terms of materials, with enough glass to make it seem open and modern, but not so much glass as to see unimaginative or lacking in visual weight. The only thing I can possibly think to change would be to perhaps use cooler rather than warmer colours. But that's just a personal preference really.

A well-thought-out and well-written answer. :tup:

I'm not seeing the symmetry of which you speak, however. If you look at page 18 of the document linked by someone123 (South & East Elevations), it is apparent that the design is actually not that symmetrical. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in general, but in this case for my tastes the appearance of randomly placed blocks is not aesthetically pleasing. While I concede that it probably requires more skill to pull off this look while maintaining functionality and a good relationship to its surroundings, to me the overall appearance of the final product is a fail. Again, reminding me of a child's building block project, or in some ways (especially the black add-on) a circuit board.

That said, I am appreciative that it is not a bland glass face, as you've pointed out.

But that's for my tastes. I am actually glad that so many are pleased with the appearance of it, as the opinions of the masses are far more important than the opinion of an individual (me), when it comes to the appeal of a structure in such a visible location (SGR).

http://i58.tinypic.com/wjgbp2.jpg

Actually I didn't go thru the linked document and didn't realise that it wasn't as symmetrical as the rendering made it seem. I'm not sure I'm quite so fond of it now. :haha:

The south elevation isn't bad, but I'm not sure the east elevation is really working for me.

To be fair, I should note that for most of us, the view that will matter will be that from streetside. So, therefore I'll try to hold my final opinion until it's built... ;)

The Trillium owners are forming an opposition to this project. They had a meeting this past week and plan to work with the friends of Schmitville group. Some concerns are blocked sunlight, traffic and the canyon effect. They are saying many were told nothing over 6 stories would be built beside them.

Figures.... People stupid enough to believe that "nothing over 6 stories will be built in a busy downtown next to you".. Nice elitist attitude. Thankfully the city has a history of quashing that argument.

There's also a bit of irony here in that they're living in an even taller building that other people opposed when it was first presented.

In any case if HRM by Design allows for this then the height isn't really debatable and it's been public knowledge for a while.

Indeed! The most effective way for them to have prevented downtown from becoming too tall would have been to boycott the Trillium development and find homes elsewhere. If no one had been willing to buy the condos, I'm sure it would have been downgraded or cancelled.

That makes no sense. WM Fares owns the Trillium and is proposing this development.

Individual owners of the condo's not the building itself.

I have heard stories that many of the owners of units in the Trillium are not happy campers. Noise, rental units where they expected owners, stagnant resale. Don't know how true any of it is but this opposition doesn't really surprise me.