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)

sdm May 9, 2008 1:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3540618)
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.

Only downside to the appeal is the added amount of time to begin. If it take an additional year (which is likely) then the market could significantly change by then and the large firms looking to come here will have found alternate locations besides Halifax.

Same thing i believe has happened to the twisted sisters development.

Shame the process is this way, just wish there wasn't an appeal option.

phrenic May 9, 2008 1:22 PM

If there weren't an appeal, what would the tentative start date be? next spring?

sdm May 9, 2008 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3540668)
If there weren't an appeal, what would the tentative start date be? next spring?

God knows, depends on council decision and the staff report. I believe the developer stated it would take a year to construct. THats all i know.

Keith P. May 9, 2008 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3540618)
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.

It really is irrelevant to the conversation and I don't want to get into that debate here.

It certainly is possible for NDPers to be involved in support of development, though I would suspect the percentage of them involved in that profession would be less than in the general population. Nor are all NDP supporters nutbars. And while it is hardly a pattern, it is interesting to note that both Bradfield and Howard Epstein have been major anti-development voices WRT downtown Halifax. I consider both of them nutbars.

sdm May 9, 2008 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3541015)
It really is irrelevant to the conversation and I don't want to get into that debate here.

It certainly is possible for NDPers to be involved in support of development, though I would suspect the percentage of them involved in that profession would be less than in the general population. Nor are all NDP supporters nutbars. And while it is hardly a pattern, it is interesting to note that both Bradfield and Howard Epstein have been major anti-development voices WRT downtown Halifax. I consider both of them nutbars.

Well regardless of political views there seem to be some seriously far fetch ideas floated that evening. One person suggested that if there is such a demand for office space then why don't we convert bishops landing. Another stated "no one on this planet has my approval to proceed with this development"

Entertaining.

someone123 May 9, 2008 5:31 PM

The extra one year delay for the URB is longer than the whole approval process should take.

NDP support to some degree is a symptom of how anti-business or just plain clueless a significant percentage of people in Halifax are. They have no appreciation for what is the private property [of others] and no understanding of why that is so important. This is why there are stupid comments like "why don't we convert Bishop's Landing?" at these meetings.

Ultimately it's the political climate/culture/attitude in Halifax that's causing so many problems. 90% of the time people or businesses deal with it simply by leaving. If they don't they tend to get dragged down by the rest. The level of ineptitude and indifference in, for example, the municipal government, is also so horrendous that nobody in particular can do much about it. It's pretty depressing. I'd almost prefer a city that could just be forgotten to one that never quite makes it because of the jealous naysayers.

phrenic May 9, 2008 5:44 PM

Sometimes when I sit in on development hearings/debates and hear some of these people speak, I feel like I am living in that movie Idiocracy.

Takeo May 9, 2008 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3539680)
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 hope they don't completely gut them. As you say... those old stone walls are great.

I had the same thought about the rooflines. The building which houses Darrell's isn't really interesting at all without it's roofline and dormers.

sdm Jun 3, 2008 11:21 PM

more details are posted about the development

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01114Details.html

someone123 Jun 3, 2008 11:36 PM

Interesting. Overall I like the design. It is set back a bit from Hollis. I suspect the architects suggested this in response to the form of the heritage buildings and the concerns mentioned above in this thread.

The Hollis St rendering is somewhat poor quality and it's hard to tell exactly how things will look. The three storey ground floor/lobby component does not look great to me. I guess it will have metal cladding similar to what has been put on many other new buildings around the city?

I think it's good that they're closing the gap in the streetscape next to Morse's Teas. I wonder what buildings were there previously?

worldlyhaligonian Jun 3, 2008 11:41 PM

I like it.

Empire Jun 3, 2008 11:45 PM

I think the design is absymal. The whole development destroys that group of buildings and in paticular the varied roof lines. At present there is a Quebec City feel to that block. That passageway with the exposed field stone wall is very uniquie. To cover that up with a cheap and ordinary infill is typical of this town. I am disappointed in the Armour Group as they did a very good job with Founders Sq. I hope it never gets built.

sdm Jun 4, 2008 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3591176)
Interesting. Overall I like the design. It is set back a bit from Hollis. I suspect the architects suggested this in response to the form of the heritage buildings and the concerns mentioned above in this thread.

The Hollis St rendering is somewhat poor quality and it's hard to tell exactly how things will look. The three storey ground floor/lobby component does not look great to me. I guess it will have metal cladding similar to what has been put on many other new buildings around the city?

I think it's good that they're closing the gap in the streetscape next to Morse's Teas. I wonder what buildings were there previously?

Reading the details available it appears the hollis side will be nova scotia sandstone, and clear glazing.

Jonovision Jun 4, 2008 2:19 AM

I am loosing faith in this one. It doesn't complement the existing buildings very well, and the design itself leaves much to be desired. I'm really fed up with having to settle for mediocrity.

On a side note. HRM has done good with its website. It's now very easy to get information on proposals.

Takeo Jun 4, 2008 9:23 PM

The passageway should not have a building above it at all. It should be an open glass covered gallery / atrium... with the stone walls intact.

As for the renderings, surely the designers could do something more interesting that just sticking a squat glass box on top? Anyone could have drawn that "rendering". Looks like they spend all of 10 minutes on that "design".

someone123 Jun 4, 2008 10:08 PM

There's always the "glass box" complaint but the fact is that this is a smaller project in a city with fairly low office lease rates. There has been no significant office construction downtown in about 20 years and few development sites are available to the private sector to develop.

sdm Jun 4, 2008 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3593281)
The passageway should not have a building above it at all. It should be an open glass covered gallery / atrium... with the stone walls intact.

As for the renderings, surely the designers could do something more interesting that just sticking a squat glass box on top? Anyone could have drawn that "rendering". Looks like they spend all of 10 minutes on that "design".

from what i saw of the plans during the public information meeting the passageway is open 2 stories, and has the existing stone walls intact.

Takeo Jun 5, 2008 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3593389)
There's always the "glass box" complaint but the fact is that this is a smaller project in a city with fairly low office lease rates. There has been no significant office construction downtown in about 20 years and few development sites are available to the private sector to develop.

The complaint is not about the material... and I'm happy to see more office space... the complaint is about the design. I'm sure the renderings do not do it justice since they are little more than a pencil sketch... but from what we DO see... it's astonishingly uninspired.

Takeo Jun 5, 2008 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3593514)
from what i saw of the plans during the public information meeting the passageway is open 2 stories, and has the existing stone walls intact.

Good to know. Any architect would be out of his or her mind not to save that. It's almost a given. But I would prefer if there was no building above that portion... just glass. Two stores with a white ceiling above you is no big thrill. Any architect would LOVE to design a glass atrium / gallery. But of course such things are not cheap. Then again... it's such a tiny span... and they could make the building taller to offset the cost of having a truly great "gateway". Anyway... just thinking out loud.

someone123 Jun 5, 2008 6:09 PM

I agree that an atrium would be much better but people will probably already be complaining about height. I don't think this is in a viewplane but it's next to Granville, etc., although that area is already surrounded by tall buildings.

Anyway, my point is that the system is as much responsible for the uninspired buildings as the developers themselves. Saying that they [the developer] should just trade off more height for a better design is unrealistic since the building has to be approved by people who have very little appreciation of good urban design and mainly just seem to want things to be as small as possible.

reddog794 Jun 9, 2008 5:54 AM

I like that. It's a grounded approach for an area that is well... how can I say this, progressivebuildingdesign-shy. I feel this kind of new-old integration in our downtown can only help ease the 60s'-70's highrise fear Halifax has, mostly due to boring concrete, and brutalism, commieblocks and all.

Someone123, I've been thinking alot about that hurdle, and the solution to those kind of people, is to plant more trees on the streets, to shrink the street scape to 2-3 stories. I remember walking around Philly just before it's heritage district, and felt the buildings were smaller, realistically most were 8-9 stories, but you didn't see the upper 6 stories. You simply felt the first 2 or 3. More trees to please the heritage nuts, while building on top of our historical foundation, for a dynamic city.

Preachy I know, but that is what, this sort of development does to me. I am seriously inspired with this approach, even though I've seen it in a dozen places before.... this is my home!

someone123 Jun 9, 2008 6:23 AM

The only problem with that approach is that many people are opposed to these buildings on (often vague) philosophical grounds. There are many variants but the common themes are that either anything new is bad, or developers and wealth creation in general are evil. Trees don't matter to people holding these positions.

The fundamental problem is that subjective, visceral opinion held by people who cannot articulate real arguments should simply not be used to guide the development process, regardless of how much time they have available to sit on committees. Three or four disgruntled people should not be setting the tone for the evolution of the downtown core of a metropolitan area with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants.

NorthYorker Jun 9, 2008 3:53 PM

I had never heard of this before, and I think it will work perfectly for the space

Takeo Jun 9, 2008 4:21 PM

I like the tree idea... but of course... there is no room for trees on Halifax streets. Way too narrow.

Spitfire75 Jun 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3601746)
Three or four disgruntled people should not be setting the tone for the evolution of the downtown core of a metropolitan area with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants.

You nailed it.
I would think the Heritage committee's role should be looking after heritage buildings, not fighting new developments.

reddog794 Jun 10, 2008 3:27 AM

That is their mandate, they simply think that it encompasses the whole friggin city, the idea of removing the heritage committee makes only beautiful sense, and leave the trust (now this is way out there) to a banker.

On the topic of narrow streets, that's because we're thinking like we're in cars, the trees would be for the people walking, enjoying the heritage preserved (not faux-fashion) street fronts, while business people worked above the trees in dynamic designed, and ecologically friendly skyscrapers, built out of the preserved buildings.

We need to shake the out-dated idea of building a city everybody can drive around, and to. People have been using roads hell-a longer than the automobile, so why give up our historical rights to have our cities designed for us?

Takeo Jun 10, 2008 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddog794 (Post 3603561)
On the topic of narrow streets, that's because we're thinking like we're in cars, the trees would be for the people walking, enjoying the heritage preserved (not faux-fashion) street fronts...

Ummm... no... it's because we have narrow streets. Or rather... I should have said... narrow sidewalks. As for thinking like we're in cars... I have a car and live in the north end... but I walk 45 min. to and from downtown everyday. Don't get me wrong... it's a great idea. Not just because it brings the eye down... which is a very interesting point and something I hadn't thought of... but because... well... they're trees! Who doesn't like trees?!

reddog794 Jun 10, 2008 12:38 PM

I apologize, I shouldn't have been as vague with that statement. But Takeo, maybe you just hit the nail on the head, our sidewalks. So why not close certain streets DT off from cars? Allow buses down them still, but make downtown a pedestrian, biking, in-line skating, skateboarding, scooter, segway, pogo-stick, what-have-you, haven. Businesses look for those kinds of ideas, because it shows long term thinking being implemented. People move to cities with that kind of infrastructure, because it shows the city cares about the finances, and health of it's citizens.

This development looks like it would thrive in a pedestrian focused DT. I only hope more developers take a page from Armour group, when it comes to historical integration.

hfx_chris Jun 10, 2008 12:51 PM

I'm not quite sure how you would propose to have two-way transit use on a pedestrian street... that would be a nightmare to manage who has right-of-way.

Personally I'm not a fan of closing too many streets downtown. Granville could be completed from the north end to the south end as a pedestrian street, but I wouldn't do much more than that. All they need to do are remove the on-street parking from the major north-south streets like Barrington and Hollis, and emphasize parking on the lesser-used east-west streets. That could in theory allow them to narrow the streets so there's more room for sidewalks and in turn trees (or benches, or whatever)

reddog794 Jun 10, 2008 1:10 PM

I like that idea just as much. Anything to get more people on the street, because that's what gives a city it's vibe.

You could make them one way, and use the ped street, on two N-S streets, with maybe a third going E-W, allowing for two (maybe three) mass/healthy transit, corridors in the DT.

sdm Jul 4, 2008 11:46 AM

Downtown tower gets a no
Heritage committee rejects proposal
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Fri. Jul 4 - 4:32 AM

A new proposal from the developer of Halifax’s award-winning Founders Square complex was rejected Thursday at city hall’s heritage advisory committee meeting.

A 4-4 vote from the advisory body to regional council resulted in a lost recommendation for Ben McCrea’s proposed Waterside Centre development.

The next step for the project is consideration by the downtown planning advisory committee, which meets next week.

The Waterside Centre proposal, by architect Andy Lynch, would connect existing buildings where Duke Street meets Hollis and Upper Water streets, save their historic facades and put a six-storey glass office tower above them.

Restaurants such as O’Carroll’s and Subway could go back into their current locations but with upgraded walls, wiring and footings. O’Carroll’s is sitting on 80-year-old pilings that are not going to last much longer, the heritage advisory committee heard last week.

Mr. McCrea attended Thursday’s meeting at city hall and took notes throughout. Several committee members lauded him for his work on Founders Square, a mid-1980s development that used a similar concept of uniting heritage buildings and erecting a 15-storey stepped-back tower above them.

But a few committee members said they were unable to get past the redesign of the buildings’ interiors in the Waterside Centre proposal.

"The buildings are heritage for a reason," Lisa Miller said. "It’s like Disney World: It looks great on the outside, but it’s all different on the inside."

Others were hung up on the style of windows chosen for a building slated to replace the wooden structure that now houses Sweet Basil restaurant. In fact, so much of the debate centred on the design and size of windows that one member tried to refocus the group.

"There is an elephant in the room here, and that is the giant glass tower on top," Michael Cross said. "It’s going to overwhelm these heritage buildings, and maybe that’s fine but I don’t think it’s what the policy states."

Coun. Bob Harvey (Lower Sackville) disagreed. He said he walked down to Hollis Street recently to look at Founders Square and was surprised to see the high office tower above the heritage streetscape.

"It didn’t destroy my view of the street level where I normally look," he said.

City planning staff have approved the Waterside Centre development and say the new office tower wouldn’t change the heritage structures below.

"The heritage values are the facades themselves," planner Luc Ouellet told the committee, noting that the heritage aspect would remain as long as the street-level view was maintained.

A committee member disagreed.

"Is heritage value an esthetic value or something more holistic in nature?" Cathy Thibault asked. "In my view, it’s more than the street-level experience."

The committee first voted 6-4 to reject the proposal, then voted 4-4 after two members left and window alterations were suggested.

After the meeting, Mr. McCrea shrugged at the result.

"We’re doing the best we can to avoid having boarded-up buildings or a parking lot," he said outside city hall.

"We have a problem down there . . . with four buildings there that are structurally and financially obsolescent. They’re completely unusable in their present form and I’m faced with the challenge of trying to find some way of dealing with it, to modernize it, to make it part of an urban core and have it economically sustainable over time."

Mr. McCrea said his company has been working on the Waterfront Centre proposal for two years.

"And that proposal is about the best that we’ve been able to do, given that there’s roughly $1.5 million of costs to do the restoration.

"We’re just trying to bring our heritage past into a modern, urban core with sustainable economic development."

( apugsley@herald.ca)

Takeo Jul 4, 2008 1:35 PM

I'm not a huge fan of that design... but you know... reality is a b*tch. You have budgets to deal with, heritage you're trying to save, buildings that are obsolete, a requirement for modern offices... etc. There are a lot of things to factor in and you can't please everyone.

spaustin Jul 4, 2008 3:52 PM

I would suggest that this wasn't a defeat. This is just an advisory committee and the fact that they split 4-4 means they've effectively nullified their recommendation.

someone123 Jul 4, 2008 7:37 PM

Well the HAC is mostly basically a special interest type group full of people who want to see heritage buildings stay around.

I can see wanting to preserve interiors in some cases, especially in large and/or public buildings, but it is a fairly unrealistic goal in general. It also raises some ethical questions as the public has no right to see anything but a the exterior facade of a private building. I'd rather see more preservation of full heritage buildings but the city has totally dropped the ball so this seems to be the best alternative that we are left with. It's not so bad if they're keeping the ground floor commercial spaces - the overall feel of the area will remain very similar.

Anyway, I expect to see this approved by council, which is what matters, and then appealed (unsuccessfully) to the URB.

keninhalifax Jul 8, 2008 5:16 PM

I am myself split over this proposal. I agree that the renderings depict a design that is contemporary, yet ensures that the historic facades of the existing buildings remain prominent. I am also optimistic that the construction will ensure that these heritage properties remain in upkeep and use for generations to come. The proposal seems to show that the addition uses glass in the 'proper' way -- i.e., the material does not seem invasive but rather stands lightly and reflects its surroundings.

However, I agree with HAC in that heritage buildings as whole (not just the facades) must be considered in the redeveopment of an historic parcel. I cannot think of any retailing, office, or other commercial uses that cannot be retrofitted into building spaces from a hundred years ago. The issue in cases like this is often that the developer does not perceive a benefit to spending more money to fix up older buildings over tearing the internal structures down and building anew. Experience has shown, however, that restored heritage buildings offer tremendous real estate advantages.

Let's wait and see if the developer revises the proposal.

terrynorthend Jul 8, 2008 8:37 PM

I was walking across that little pedestrian bridge that leads to the law courts today. I've changed my mind about this particular development. There are some very cool rooflines, not just on those buildings, but on the row in behind and they juxtapose very nicely with the towers already there..and presumably against the new International Place too. It would be a shame to lose this.. check out that vantage if you get a chance..

hfx_chris Jul 8, 2008 9:00 PM

To tell the truth, before International Place was officially announced, I was supporting this development, albeit a weak support. Now that International Place seems to be a for real going ahead development, I'm not so sure anymore. I may have to join you; I'm not against it, just not really in favor of it, if that makes sense.

sdm Jul 10, 2008 2:31 PM

Another 'no’ for tower over NSCAD

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Thu. Jul 10 - 5:01 AM

A new proposal from the redeveloper of the Historic Properties and Founders Square received a second negative review at a council committee this week.

The Waterside Centre, the latest project from Ben McCrea’s Armour Group, had the once-over from the downtown planning advisory committee.

And like the heritage advisory committee that reviewed it last week, the volunteer citizens group turned it down.

The proposal, by architect Andy Lynch, connects existing buildings where Duke Street meets Hollis and Upper Water streets, saves their historic facades and puts a six-storey glass office tower above them.

But a member of the committee said Wednesday that the advisory body to regional council felt the project was too big.

"The development simply overwhelms the historic properties," Beverly Miller said in an interview.

"When you look at it from below, it’s huge."

In making their decision, the committee relied on a policy in council’s regional plan that governs redevelopments of heritage properties.

"Any new work must be physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the heritage property," she said.

So any new additions, then, must not be a copy or a knock-off of the heritage work, she said.

"But it doesn’t mean a glass cube either," she said.

Last week, architect Andy Lynch said that the design of the six-storey building follows staff’s direction of not entirely matching up the new part with the old.

City planning staff has already recommended the Waterside Centre development, saying the new office tower wouldn’t change the heritage structures below.

Under the plan, restaurants in the current building, like O’Carroll’s and Subway, could go back into their current locations but with upgraded walls, wiring and footings.

The next step for the development proposal is to go before regional council.

At that point, councillors will vote whether or not to hold a public hearing on the project.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

Jonovision Jul 10, 2008 5:30 PM

I'm glad this one seems to be lacking support. There is a nice line of heritage, low buildings that run from the waterfront of Historic Properties up to city hall, and continued up the hill. It creates almost a little canyon of the lower, and older buildings. This building would totally ruin that effect.

someone123 Jul 10, 2008 5:36 PM

I agree that this one seems less desirable now that International Place has been announced.

My main problem in all this is that the Bev Millers et al. are using the municipal government to effectively reduce the value of these properties below market level (the owners would make more money if this were a tower) but nothing is being offered to the developers in exchange. 30-40 years ago when these properties were first acquired by the current owners there was little indication of what would or would not be considered "untouchable" heritage. That whole end of the downtown was originally similar buildings and now most of it is covered with office towers.

Is it any wonder why many of these properties see relatively little investment?

Jonovision Jul 11, 2008 6:04 PM

A rendering from an the paper today.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/pho...08_P58M193.jpg

terrynorthend Jul 11, 2008 6:37 PM

She looks better from this perspective than Lwr. Water looking northwest..

sdm Jul 11, 2008 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3667546)
She looks better from this perspective than Lwr. Water looking northwest..

Yeah this is way better from this vantage, thanks for posting it as i can't figure out how to do it yet. LOL

worldlyhaligonian Jul 11, 2008 8:26 PM

I agree that International Place makes this development less important (especially in forumers POV). I'm on the fence about this one, moreso with its appearance vs. heritage arguements. International Place is modern and would be a good cap for the streetscape.

sdm Aug 6, 2008 12:35 PM

Heritage battle heats up
Group, developer at odds over historic Halifax properties
By TOM PETERS Business Reporter
Wed. Aug 6 - 5:41 AM

Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia says it has gained strong public support for its opposition to a new Halifax development and for the preservation of a number of heritage properties.

Phil Pacey, president of the heritage group, said Tuesday his organization canvassed the general public during Natal Day weekend and had 683 postcards signed in favour of asking Halifax Regional Council to protect the heritage buildings.

"The people of HRM are strongly attached to our heritage buildings," Mr. Pacey said. "Over and over, the ordinary citizens of Halifax told us of the beauty of these buildings, how important they are to the character of Halifax and what a waste it would be if they were lost."

The Armour Group of Halifax has proposed the Waterside Centre project.

It would connect existing buildings where Duke Street meets Hollis and Upper Water streets. It would save historic facades, but would include a six-storey glass office structure on top of these buildings.

The proposal has received a negative response from both the downtown planning advisory committee and the heritage advisory committee.

The project was scheduled to go before regional council Tuesday night to have a date set for a public hearing.

The heritage trust says the project would completely demolish two buildings (O’Carroll’s and Sweet Basil dining room locations) and mostly demolish three other buildings in the central block of Historic Properties.

Ben McCrea, chairman of the Armour Group, said Tuesday the buildings in question are "functionally and economically obsolete and couldn’t even be rented for warehouse space."

Mr. McCrea, developer of award-winning Founders Square, said the interiors of the heritage properties were "dramatically altered" in the 1970s to meet tenant requirements, especially those of NSCAD University.

The university has moved to a new location and Mr. McCrea said what is left is like a "rabbit warren."

He said the heritage group has shown no compromise and is "totally opposed to anything that looks like a Founders Square approach to restoring historic buildings and using them to regenerate our downtown with prime office space."

He said he has an obligation to maintain the historic building fabric, but also "build a useable, economically feasible and economically sustainable development that serves the greater purpose" of providing class A office space in downtown "to serve tenants who are going to hire the young people of Nova Scotia."

However, Mr. Pacey’s vision for the buildings is somewhat different.

"What we would love to see, and the best option would be, (is) to have somebody occupy the upstairs of these buildings as offices or for some other use," he said.

"That would be an excellent use."

The municipal planning strategy discusses suitable alterations for heritage properties "so all the interesting features on the roof and in between the facades of these buildings should be maintained," Mr. Pacey said.

The heritage group is hoping council will listen to the advice from the heritage advisory committee and the planning advisory committee, which have recommended against the project.

( tpeters@herald.ca)

sdm Aug 6, 2008 12:36 PM

Notice a new rendering up on HRM website

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/image...gHollisSt3.jpg

Looks really good in my opinion.

Love how heritage says to build on vacant lots.... last time i check they attempted to stall anything being proposed on vacant lots.

Sad this city is.

phrenic Aug 6, 2008 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3717387)
Love how heritage says to build on vacant lots.... last time i check they attempted to stall anything being proposed on vacant lots.

Yeah I thought that comment was awfully rich coming from him. What do you call the UG site then, Mr. Pacey?

sdm Aug 6, 2008 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic (Post 3717423)
Yeah I thought that comment was awfully rich coming from him. What do you call the UG site then, Mr. Pacey?

yeah the best is when they claim they would like to see office space development downtown.. Funny how a few months ago they claim there wasn't a need and that if there was then the government could move out.

Sad these people won't allow Halifax to grow as a city and be something we can all be proud of.

terrynorthend Aug 6, 2008 3:35 PM

So is there a rift developing in the Heritage community? It seems to me, Alan Parish recently wrote a letter to the editor in which he mentioned support for this development (as well as the Roy tower). I believe he favourably compared this Armour Group proposal to Delta Barrington/Granville Street Mall.

Haliguy Aug 6, 2008 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3717669)
So is there a rift developing in the Heritage community? It seems to me, Alan Parish recently wrote a letter to the editor in which he mentioned support for this development (as well as the Roy tower). I believe he favourably compared this Armour Group proposal to Delta Barrington/Granville Street Mall.

Thats what I'm thinking as well.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:31 AM.

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