SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=144928)

phrenic Apr 2, 2008 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3456617)
7 stories for most of downtown, i knew it, HRM by design is total waste....

Crikey. I must say I had higher hopes of HRMbydesign than that (pun intended).

someone123 Apr 2, 2008 5:17 PM

Well they kept the viewplanes and then there are areas like Barrington that will be fairly heavily controlled. Of the best development sites, most allow much more than 7 storeys. For example, the areas around Hollis/Sackville over to Salter and down to the waterfront will be "zoned" for highrises. "7 floors for most of the downtown" is therefore pretty misleading.

One would think that any development proposal submitted prior to the adoption of HRM by Design would be judged according to the MPS.

phrenic Apr 3, 2008 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3455323)
I am sure the heritage group will be winding up for their fight.

Here we go...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chronicle Herald
Save Peter Martin building, group urges


Thu. Apr 3 - 6:34 AM

The head of a heritage group is urging Halifax regional councillors to appeal a Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision handed down Tuesday that will strip a 160-year-old building of its heritage designation.

Philip Pacey, president of the Nova Scotia Heritage Trust, said he believes the Peter Martin building at 1870 Upper Water St. must be saved from the wrecking ball in order to maintain the integrity of the buildings around it.

The Armour Group, owner of the property, wants to demolish the wood-frame building as part of a $16-million redevelopment near Historic Properties that renovates and incorporates four other heritage buildings into an 80,000-square-foot office building.

Armour Group took Halifax Regional Municipality to court earlier this month and argued the building had been designated a heritage building in error. In a decision released Tuesday, Justice Walter Goodfellow agreed.

But the city has the right to appeal and Mr. Pacey is urging them to do so.

"This is not only a question about the importance of heritage buildings, but the integrity of the registration process."

Municipal spokesman John O’Brien said the city does not comment on legal matters.

If an appeal is filed, it will be public when it goes before the courts, Mr. O’Brien said.

Even if the city refuses to appeal or loses the appeal, Mr. Pacey said his group will still be opposing the overall development when it comes up for public hearings.

"We don’t want to be put into the position of opposition, but our heritage reputation is important nationally and this project really only preserves facades and ruins the rooflines and historic style of the buildings. It would be a tragedy if this were approved."

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1047245.html

skyscraper_1 Apr 3, 2008 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3459676)

ugh...you can't win with these people!

someone123 Apr 3, 2008 6:15 PM

The chance of an appeal from the city is lower than an appeal from the HT since they probably realize that they need actual evidence of a problem with the decision. Being unhappy with the result is not good enough.

I don't think there was ever really any doubt that the development itself would be appealed.

phrenic Apr 3, 2008 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3460054)
I don't think there was ever really any doubt that the development itself would be appealed.

True, but the term "grasping at straws" comes to mind when I think of the HT's opinion on this development...especially since the Court has already ruled in the Armour Group's favor on the little green building.

Takeo Apr 3, 2008 7:42 PM

It's great that Founder's Square saved all those facades... but since they contain only office space and no ground level retail at all (unless you count a post office as ground level retail)... it's just as dead as if they had simply demolished everything. I hope the same is not true of this new development. If they keep all of the street level restaurants in those four buildings (rather than turning it into offices) and design something great on top... I'm fine with it. That said, the Lydon Lynch rendering I saw looked pretty lame.

Keith P. Apr 3, 2008 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3460261)
It's great that Founder's Square saved all those facades... but since they contain only office space and no ground level retail at all (unless you count a post office as ground level retail)... it's just as dead as if they had simply demolished everything. I hope the same is not true of this new development. If they keep all of the street level restaurants in those four buildings (rather than turning it into offices) and design something great on top... I'm fine with it. That said, the Lydon Lynch rendering I saw looked pretty lame.

Founders Square also includes the Old Triangle pub so it is hardly dead. There also used to be a hairdressing salon on the Hollis street side though I dunno if they are still there.

I agree with you on the rendering -- pretty uninspired.

someone123 Apr 3, 2008 11:52 PM

I believe the proposal includes ground floor retail/commercial space.

Ground floor office (aside from lobbies) should probably not be allowed in new buildings downtown. Same thing goes for blank walls at street level. I think these are HRM by Design requirements (the height limits are unfortunate in many cases, but the urban design requirements will be way better than what's in the MPS).

Takeo Apr 4, 2008 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3460533)
Founders Square also includes the Old Triangle pub so it is hardly dead. There also used to be a hairdressing salon on the Hollis street side though I dunno if they are still there.

I agree with you on the rendering -- pretty uninspired.

I thought of the triangle but I don't think it's part of Founders Square. It's within that block, but there's nothing built on top of it. Anyway, take a walk down the Hollis street side of that building and look at all those pretty facades with nothing but insurance company offices behind them and tell me that section of street is not dead.

Glad to hear that HRM by Design is forbidding blank walls and offices at street level.

sdm Apr 4, 2008 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3461873)
I thought of the triangle but I don't think it's part of Founders Square. It's within that block, but there's nothing built on top of it. Anyway, take a walk down the Hollis street side of that building and look at all those pretty facades with nothing but insurance company offices behind them and tell me that section of street is not dead.

Glad to hear that HRM by Design is forbidding blank walls and offices at street level.

The old triangle is part of founder square and actually occupies several of the heritage buildings.

The whole lower level of founders is actually designed for retail and was for quite some years. However as things evolved these companies failed. The same can be said for the main level on Hollis. Its nice to have retail at ground level however it needs to be economically feasible

The_Bow Apr 9, 2008 6:07 AM

Is the Heritage Trust mainly run by Philip Pacey or does he have a good number of followers?

someone123 Apr 9, 2008 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Bow (Post 3472366)
Is the Heritage Trust mainly run by Philip Pacey or does he have a good number of followers?

Basically there are about half a dozen anti-development squeaky wheels. The same people are interviewed by the media over and over.

I would say that many people in general are not really in favour of new development but they don't spend any effort to fight it or usually even to inform themselves of what is going on. I don't put much stock in the comments like "all buildings should be below the tree canopy!" that appear in the papers, for example.

On balance I think most people want to see the city grow and evolve, or at the very least they want the things that go along with growth even if they don't understand the economic relationships.

Takeo Apr 9, 2008 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3463057)
The old triangle is part of founder square and actually occupies several of the heritage buildings.

The whole lower level of founders is actually designed for retail and was for quite some years. However as things evolved these companies failed. The same can be said for the main level on Hollis. Its nice to have retail at ground level however it needs to be economically feasible

Yah... I was thinking of course of that long stretch of MT&L offices. It's a shame to see those lovely old facades in such a lifeless state. I think it's a great development mind you... I just hope the same fate doesn't await the O'Carolls building. There's a LOT more pedestrian traffic there though... so I'm sure it will be fine.

phrenic Apr 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:

Dear Sir,

I couldn't believe my eyes. I think HRM by design guru, Andy Filmore gave developer Ben Mac Rae the go ahead to increase the height of his proposed alteration of Heritage in the heart of Halifax to nine stores, in the article quoting him in Thursday's Herald, by Bruce Erskine.

Nine stories or even six stories changes a Heritage Building from authentic history into a Disney like theme park.

Two hundred years of our history gone with the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers.

Amazing what you can do if the public is not paying attention.

Peter McCurdy
Halifax
April 04, 2008
This is a letter to the editor published in today's coast.:slob:

someone123 Apr 10, 2008 9:07 PM

That's the kind of nonsense I hate reading in the papers.

terrynorthend Apr 10, 2008 11:31 PM

Such a pointless letter to the editor. Clearly he wouldn't be happy with a 6 story alteration either...

Takeo Apr 11, 2008 12:41 AM

Gotta love the "Disney" hyperbole. Whatever dude. I wish the media wouldn't give these squeaky wheels so much "air time".

Keith P. Apr 11, 2008 2:02 AM

Almost as bad as the article earlier this week in the Herald (by Roger Taylor, I believe) referring to it as a "high-rise". :(

someone123 Apr 11, 2008 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3476864)
Gotta love the "Disney" hyperbole. Whatever dude. I wish the media wouldn't give these squeaky wheels so much "air time".

He's going to look like an idiot when he wanders into the lobby and asks where Mickey is. :)

The people who write for the local papers unfortunately seem kind of uncreative so they have to rely on this kind of thing to create "issues".

skyscraper_1 Apr 11, 2008 5:13 AM

OR the ever popular..."We don't want Halifax to become a mini Toronto!!!" YES, We certainly do not want to become a dynamic, vibrant, modern, international city and yet Toronto still probably has more "heritage" buildings then Halifax.

someone123 Apr 11, 2008 5:32 AM

I'm guessing that by 1990 or so, Toronto and Halifax had roughly equal proportions of heritage buildings to modern buildings, though the heritage buildings in Halifax tend to be much older and of a much higher quality for the same period until sometime near the end of the 1800s.

The top-notch heritage buildings in Halifax don't really have equals in Canada outside of Montreal and Quebec City. Even then there are often no equivalents in terms quality (e.g. Province House) and the styles of all buildings are unique to the Maritimes (Saint John has many similar buildings of a similar quality from around the mid-1880s to the early 20th century), at least within Canada.

The big caveat for Halifax is that there are very few areas along the lines of "old" Quebec and Montreal. This is largely why I don't subscribe to the idea that the downtown should be fully preserved - only half of it is left to begin with!

sdm Apr 24, 2008 1:55 PM

News out in Allnovascotia stating HRM will not appeal the supreme courts decision handed down earlier this month. Great news i believe for this development.

However, Dawn Sloane is not in favor of HRM not appealing this ruling. She claims the wooden building is the last on lower water street and should remain (to bad its upper water street where this building is). She furthermore states "Sloane said keeping only the facade of heritage buildings in redevelopment concerns her. She said if that's the approach to maintaining heritage buildings it would be like heritage a la disney world"

someone123 Apr 24, 2008 4:58 PM

Last wooden building on that street? As if that's a bad thing? This area is mostly highrise office towers and large stone and brick buildings. The wooden building looks subpar and actually has pretty bad proportions.

I still expect this to be appealed by the Heritage Trust, etc. of course.

terrynorthend Apr 24, 2008 6:13 PM

I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!

sdm Apr 24, 2008 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3507856)
I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!


Yeah, makes your wonder who is running this city.

Heritage trust is certainly going to oppose this but they are a bit busy these days with trying to stop a number of developments.

Public meeting on this project is May 7th at City Hall. I will be there to ensure i give my thumbs up to this project. I hope others here will be as well as we need new office and new development downtown.

spaustin Apr 24, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3507856)
I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!

If council did that I can't imagine it holding up in court. In the end I think its just a little bit of noise and pandering. If council were serious in opposing this, they would have appealed.

sdm Apr 25, 2008 12:25 PM

Demolition to go ahead
City won’t dispute tearing down of historic building
By Rachel Mendleson
April 23, 2008 12:54
The city won’t be stepping in to save a centuries-old wood-framed building near Historic Properties that is slated for demolition.
Regional Council voted during an in-camera session yesterday not to appeal a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge’s ruling that the building had mistakenly received heritage designation.
In light of the ruling however, councillors voted to apply for changes to the provincial Heritage Property Act.
The proposed amendments to the act include ensuring “no registration could be overturned because of a matter of form or procedural irregularity.”
But that wasn’t good enough for Downtown Halifax Coun. Dawn Sloane, who voted against the motion.
“Here we have something that is going to gravely affect the Heritage Act and sets a precedent, and I’m not allowed to talk about it,” she said.
–rachel.mendleson@metronews.ca

Canopus Apr 25, 2008 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3509698)
The proposed amendments to the act include ensuring “no registration could be overturned because of a matter of form or procedural irregularity.”

They are probably doing this because they know they won't absolutely be successful but it makes it appear as if they are defending historic downtown interests.

It's a really stupid amendment though and typically shite from council. I mean good gad something is either historic and worth preserving or it's not. This stupid amendment would take away the ability to act sensibly!

sdm May 7, 2008 3:27 PM

Public information meeting at city hall tonight, think i will go and see whats up.

Haliguy May 7, 2008 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3535859)
Public information meeting at city hall tonight, think i will go and see whats up.

Where's it at?

sdm May 7, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliguy (Post 3535982)
Where's it at?

Sheet says Halifax Hall, which i believe is located in city hall @ 7pm

hfx_chris May 7, 2008 9:39 PM

Oh boo, I need to start adding these things to my calendar in advance...

I wonder if there would be any logic in having a new forum created just for posting and discussing upcoming events related to development issues?

someone123 May 7, 2008 10:08 PM

That sounds like a good idea. We could add an "events" section to the "construction and land development" subsection. It would be one thread per event with the date, time, and location in the thread title.

sdm May 8, 2008 1:25 AM

attended the meeting tonight.

As one would assume heritage trust was in attendance and was shooting down the development.

I guess things never change.

next step sounds like council approval.

Aya_Akai May 8, 2008 2:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3537322)
As one would assume heritage trust was in attendance and was shooting down the development.

I would assume the old cards were played in what they had to say, but do you think that they are going to appeal this one?

..they'd better not..:hell:

sdm May 8, 2008 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaliStreaks (Post 3537434)
I would assume the old cards were played in what they had to say, but do you think that they are going to appeal this one?

..they'd better not..:hell:

Already saying "no,no,no", so i guess the answer is yes.

Haliguy May 8, 2008 11:45 AM

I was there as well. There was also quite a bit of suuport for it as well. Even Mr Parish the former president of Heritge Trust was in favour of it.

sdm May 8, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliguy (Post 3538051)
I was there as well. There was also quite a bit of suuport for it as well. Even Mr Parish the former president of Heritge Trust was in favour of it.

Yes, he is a reasonable person and fully understands that saving buildings need to be economically viable or they become a parking lot.

Problem is as much support there maybe the current approval process allows for anyone to appeal the development, citizen or heritage trust.

Keith P. May 8, 2008 9:50 PM

Article from the Herald:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9006670.html

Residents give a listen to 9-storey proposal

By KRISTEN LIPSCOMBE Staff Reporter
Thu. May 8 - 5:37 PM

While Halifax resident Michael Bradfield feels the upper half of a new downtown office building would awkwardly resemble something a “mad hatter" would wear, fellow Haligonian Paul MacKinnon said he rather likes the modern design that would top the proposed redevel­opment of several Hollis and Up­per Water Street properties.

“I like the fact that it distin­guishes itself from the rest of the building," said Mr. Mac­Kinnon, who spoke as a resident but also happens to be executive director of the Downtown Hali­fax Business Commission. “I do like the contrast in that."

More than 50 people showed up Wednesday night at city hall for an information meeting on The Armour Group Ltd.’s appli­cation to demolish the proper­ties from 1855 to 1873 Hollis Street and 1860 to 1870 Upper Water Street (beside the Morse’s Tea building). A nine-storey of­fice building would be built on the site, which would also offer retail space and underground parking.

Ben McCrea, chairman of The Armour Group, and architect Andy Lynch explained the his­toric façades of most businesses located there would remain, and the walkway from Hollis Street to Lower Water Street would be maintained.

Opinions on whether the re­development would work for downtown Halifax were mixed as several residents took to the microphone to share their thoughts on the proposed pro­ject.

“This may be the way to save these properties," Mr. Mac­Kinnon said. “It may be a choice of losing them altogether, or sav­ing them in this manner where they do have a functional use."

“We do need office space — we can’t argue about that," he add­ed. “Our vacancy rate is less than four per cent in downtown Halifax for class A office space."

Mr. MacKinnon said the rede­velopment would “bring life to the waterfront," pointing out that most businesses at the His­toric Properties shut down in the off-season.

“We need to have more people downtown and this is going to accommodate that," he said.

But Phil Pacey, president of the Heritage Trust of Nova Sco­tia, was less than impressed with The Armour Group’s plans, which would include tearing down a former registered heri­tage building at 1870 Upper Wa­ter St. The old wooden building is home to Sweet Basil Bistro.

“These are important heri­tage buildings in the city of Ha­lifax," he said.

“It’s too bad that they weren’t provincially regis­tered, but they’re not. They’re only municipally registered, which means that they could be demolished in a year with prop­er notice given."

Approving the project would be a “grave" decision, Mr. Pacey said.

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) was the only coun­cillor to attend Wednesday’s meeting, just one of many steps to be taken before the proposal can be approved. That includes a staff report that will be pre­sented to city council.

Takeo May 8, 2008 11:52 PM

Say what you will about Dawn... she's the only councilor who's almost always at ALL of these things.

Just to clarify... the only building being demolished is the green wooden building right? The article made it sound like a bunch of buildings were being demolished.

I like that they are maintaining the passageway... even though I'm guessing that was never a passageway historically... it's become one now and is kind of a gateway to the Historic Properties on the waterfront.

someone123 May 9, 2008 12:03 AM

As far as I know only the green building is being demolished and all of the other facades will be preserved in a manner similar to Founder's Square.

The Heritage Trust probably will appeal but the developer knows this and all that matters in the end is whether or not the URB decides the development is consistent with the MPS. I think they will.

someone123 May 9, 2008 12:08 AM

Here's a shot by RicLaf on Flickr that shows the site along Hollis Street:

http://static.flickr.com/31/40615471_f28ed92a53.jpg

The street's pretty nicely built up and would be even better with United Gulf and some kind of office building next to the Bank of Canada.

sdm May 9, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3539650)
As far as I know only the green building is being demolished and all of the other facades will be preserved in a manner similar to Founder's Square.

The Heritage Trust probably will appeal but the developer knows this and all that matters in the end is whether or not the URB decides the development is consistent with the MPS. I think they will.

Only building is the wooden building at 1870, the rest remain.

This shouldn't be appealled.

Keith P. May 9, 2008 12:15 AM

The article is somewhat confusing because it talks about the facades being retained, which to me implies that the remainder of each will go away. That may or may not be a good thing.

Michael Bradfield is really starting to annoy me. He taught me economics way back when at Dal and while even then he was a left-wing NDP nutcase, he seemed reasonable most of the time. Now he goes on about how the United Gulf project really won't make any difference to the economy and has apparently graduated from the Phil Pacey School of Architecture.

someone123 May 9, 2008 12:16 AM

One thing I notice in that picture is that there are those ~1820s buildings with pitched roofs. I remember a comment about preserving rooflines and in reality it's probably unlikely that these buildings will look very good as just facades. That ironstone wall is also interesting and I guess it will be removed.

I was actually in Michael Bradfield's economics class as well.

Keith P. May 9, 2008 1:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3539680)
I was actually in Michael Bradfield's economics class as well.

Does he still use the case study example of the "Endee Pea Company"?

phrenic May 9, 2008 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3539678)
he was a left-wing NDP nutcase

Just know that most of us left-wing NDP'ers are neither nut cases nor anti-development.

Keith P. May 9, 2008 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3540595)
Just know that most of us left-wing NDP'ers are neither nut cases nor anti-development.

:haha:

phrenic May 9, 2008 12:47 PM

Oh the classic stereotypes will never die, eh. Much of the same and more can be said of Conservatives (and Liberals) as well. But I suppose I should know better. Anyhow, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

This really shouldn't be appealed. But at least an appeal would likely lose, which is comforting.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.