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)

Takeo Sep 8, 2008 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3785479)
Positive comments so far, although i am sure the naysayers will chime in soon.

There are a few naysayers even on this forum... myself included.

Dmajackson Sep 8, 2008 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3785872)
There are a few naysayers even on this forum... myself included.

Me too.

I defenitely won't miss this proposal if it is rejected.

Haliguy Sep 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3785931)
Me too.

I defenitely won't miss this proposal if it is rejected.

So you would rather see a parking lot there?

Jonovision Sep 8, 2008 5:48 PM

No one wants to see a parking lot anywhere downtown! Since when is that the only other option? Either you build this proposal or we put in a parking lot! That just makes the developers sound evil.

Dmajackson Sep 8, 2008 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haliguy (Post 3785945)
So you would rather see a parking lot there?

No but there are other options. I not an expert on economics so I don't know if any of these would make sense but;

1) He could fix up the upper floors and make them more inviting to offices,

2) or I think HRM should purchase these buildings to protect them from future proposals.

As someone stated earlier in this thread if nothing is built ontop of this block the buildings will stand for another hundred years. The problem only arises when you build a six-storey building on 200 year old buildings.

I highly doubt the developer would turn this into a parking lot if it is rejected. He would probably either sell the land or redesign his idea and try again. Besides isn't there some sort of law that bans new parking lots downtown?

Wishblade Sep 8, 2008 6:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3786061)
No but there are other options. I not an expert on economics so I don't know if any of these would make sense but;

1) He could fix up the upper floors and make them more inviting to offices,

2) or I think HRM should purchase these buildings to protect them from future proposals.

As someone stated earlier in this thread if nothing is built ontop of this block the buildings will stand for another hundred years. The problem only arises when you build a six-storey building on 200 year old buildings.

I highly doubt the developer would turn this into a parking lot if it is rejected. He would probably either sell the land or redesign his idea and try again. Besides isn't there some sort of law that bans new parking lots downtown?


Lets be honest.

If this proposal gets rejected, those buildings are just going to be left to crumble into an empty lot. For some reason I just cant see your 2 options happening, as sad as it sounds. I really do think its this development, or nothing, and I for one am a fan of the former.

sdm Sep 8, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3786061)
No but there are other options. I not an expert on economics so I don't know if any of these would make sense but;

1) He could fix up the upper floors and make them more inviting to offices,

2) or I think HRM should purchase these buildings to protect them from future proposals.

As someone stated earlier in this thread if nothing is built ontop of this block the buildings will stand for another hundred years. The problem only arises when you build a six-storey building on 200 year old buildings.

I highly doubt the developer would turn this into a parking lot if it is rejected. He would probably either sell the land or redesign his idea and try again. Besides isn't there some sort of law that bans new parking lots downtown?

Considering one of the buildings has signifcant structural issues, i doubt it will stand (on its own) for another 100 years.

The city would never buy them back.

I had a girl friend who was at NSCAD and spent time inside these buildings. There is no way to make them work for anything, they are cut up inside and have little or no useable space and are a freaking maze.....

Wishblade statement above is pretty correct.

Keith P. Sep 8, 2008 9:35 PM

The justifiable fear is that if nothing is done they will eventually become like the dead zone on Barrington where the NFB and Khyber bldgs are located. HRM owns the Khyber bldg and it is in poor shape and does nothing for the block. The others next to it are even worse. You don't want them to buy this block.

The problem though as others have stated is that no other alternatives to this specific proposal have emerged.

Haliguy Sep 8, 2008 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision (Post 3786019)
No one wants to see a parking lot anywhere downtown! Since when is that the only other option? Either you build this proposal or we put in a parking lot! That just makes the developers sound evil.


Its not the only other option, but is very likley what would happen. These buildings are to important to the urban fabric of the downtown to lose. I would much rather have tower on top of them than lose them all together.

hfx_chris Sep 8, 2008 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3786061)
As someone stated earlier in this thread if nothing is built ontop of this block the buildings will stand for another hundred years.

Unless that someone is an engineer who has inspected the buildings, or had access to an inspection report, I would take that with a grain of.. uh, salt? or sand. I can't remember, a grain of something.

Takeo Sep 9, 2008 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3786292)
...one of the buildings has signifcant structural issues...

According to the developer.

sdm Sep 9, 2008 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3787047)
According to the developer.

Yes, who as well owns the buildings and has the original engineering drawings for the building.

Jonovision Sep 9, 2008 2:47 AM

I recently had a tour of the buildings with the developer. And my understanding was that non of these buildings were in danger of falling down. There is a concern with the building that houses O'Carrolls because it was built on wooden pilings which may have to be replaced when a new development happens. Because of the way they were redeveloped in the 1970s for NSCAD they are unusable in their current state as office space. There are emergency exits that take you through multiple buildings. They are just simply not up to code. I have no issues with them tearing out the insides of the buildings, as I now see that they are unusable. I just want to see a better addition. I think small addition would be more appropriate or maybe if they just did something with the massing. I think that is what bothers me the most, when it comes down to it, it's just a box they are sticking on top. What if they had the full 9 stories on the Duke side and took it down a floor every 10 or 20 ft as they went towards the Morris building. Just anything that isn't a box.

hfx_chris Sep 9, 2008 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision (Post 3787242)
There are emergency exits that take you through multiple buildings.

Hah. Sorry, but I got this mental image of somebody running for the emergency exit as the building burns, and stepping out into a big maze, running around in circles...

sdm Sep 9, 2008 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfx_chris (Post 3788175)
Hah. Sorry, but I got this mental image of somebody running for the emergency exit as the building burns, and stepping out into a big maze, running around in circles...

Scary thing is that is the reality of these buildings.

Hopefully there will be some positive support tonight that will see this approved.

JET Sep 9, 2008 5:51 PM

I could be wrong about this, but I thought that NSCAD was in the block above. I can't remember any NSCAD programs in the O'carrroll's block. JET

http://www.nscad.ns.ca/about/campus_map.php

"Our Granville campus is housed in the Historic Properties district, adjacent to the scenic boardwalks of Halifax Harbour. The Victorian terrace-style campus – the only one of its kind in North America – is an interconnected row of 23 former merchant shops and warehouses bounded by Hollis and Duke Streets and the cobblestone Granville pedestrian terrace. Full of character and many mysterious nooks and stairwells, the interiors are open, rugged and hospitable, and have adapted well to varied needs. "

sdm Sep 9, 2008 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET (Post 3788543)
I could be wrong about this, but I thought that NSCAD was in the block above. I can't remember any NSCAD programs in the O'carrroll's block. JET

http://www.nscad.ns.ca/about/campus_map.php

"Our Granville campus is housed in the Historic Properties district, adjacent to the scenic boardwalks of Halifax Harbour. The Victorian terrace-style campus – the only one of its kind in North America – is an interconnected row of 23 former merchant shops and warehouses bounded by Hollis and Duke Streets and the cobblestone Granville pedestrian terrace. Full of character and many mysterious nooks and stairwells, the interiors are open, rugged and hospitable, and have adapted well to varied needs. "

NSCAD is still there in that block, but were also in the Morse tea building and this block of buildings. They vacanted sometime ago to the Port Authority building.

spaustin Sep 10, 2008 1:13 AM

Must be the impending election as council is all over asking points of clarification this evening. By and by I ended up coming home to watch in the comfort of my living room. I was #45 on the list to speak so I was bumped!

Dmajackson Sep 10, 2008 2:13 AM

I was out tonight so I missed the whole thing. Can someone catch me up? How many were in support? opposition?

Whats the final verdict on this approved? rejected? or postponed?

Haliguy Sep 10, 2008 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3789685)
I was out tonight so I missed the whole thing. Can someone catch me up? How many were in support? opposition?

Whats the final verdict on this approved? rejected? or postponed?

Its carried over until next week due to the large number of people wanting to speak. As far as the number for and against I would say 50/50 split, but I don't know I didn't see the whole thing.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ (Post 3789685)
I was out tonight so I missed the whole thing. Can someone catch me up? How many were in support? opposition?

Whats the final verdict on this approved? rejected? or postponed?

Postponed. Typical naysayers are out. Seems to be support from all who were there, including me.

Dmajackson Sep 10, 2008 3:24 AM

Thanks "Haliguy" and "sdm".

Just to update my view on this (since my last view got torn to peices), as I've stated before I won't miss this if i gets rejected, but if the only other option is a parking lot then yes by all means build this. I just wish they would make it less of a "box" shape.

Jonovision Sep 10, 2008 3:57 AM

I did rather enjoy McCluskeys clarification for Mr Pacey. She totally called him out, and I almost felt bad for the man. I think he is in way over his head.
It was quite a night I'd have to say. I still haven't truly made up my mind on it though.

worldlyhaligonian Sep 10, 2008 4:13 AM

I am for this development after watching tonight.

It will add slightly to the skyline but definitely retain its old character at street level. Yeah, its a box, but its still office space downtown and the existing ground-level scheme.

Takeo Sep 10, 2008 10:21 AM

I'm no fan of the "typical nay-sayers" but that kind of ideological, black and white discussion only inflames tensions and serves no one. The bottom line is, there are valid points on BOTH side with this one. Up until now, the HT was almost always fighting against in-fill development on empty lots. Ridiculous to say the least. This development is very different. We're talking about gutting half a dozen heritage properties. Blind support of anything and everything is no better than blind opposition to anything and everything.

Here are what I see as the main points.

1. No one wants to see these buildings demolished. I can't imagine it... but you never know. It could happen since Halifax's heritage buildings have almost no protection whatsoever.

2. The buildings are not in danger of falling down on their own... so they could be saved... but we have to accept that a restoration is simply not in that cards... not with the current owner.

3. The interiors are apparently a disaster of maze-like mismatched floors.

4. The proposed addition is an ugly and uninspired design from a by-gone architectural era. Bauhaus / International Style stopped being "modern" over half a century ago. I agree with the principles of early modernism of course, but can we do something a little more interesting please? This design is a dud.

Overall... I think that developing the buildings into modern office space may be the lesser of two evils. And unlike the old warehouses across the street which were successfully converted to office space without a radical gutting of the interior... here were have a mishmash of non-contiguous internal spaces that just won't work as offices. So maybe we have to accept that any plan with the current owner will involve gutting these buildings... but I would really like to see the designers burn their plans and go back to the "drawing board".

spaustin Sep 10, 2008 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3790328)
I'm no fan of the "typical nay-sayers" but that kind of ideological, black and white discussion only inflames tensions and serves no one. The bottom line is, there are valid points on BOTH side with this one. Up until now, the HT was almost always fighting against in-fill development on empty lots. Ridiculous to say the least. This development is very different. We're talking about gutting half a dozen heritage properties. Blind support of anything and everything is no better than blind opposition to anything and everything.

Here are what I see as the main points.

1. No one wants to see these buildings demolished. I can't imagine it... but you never know. It could happen since Halifax's heritage buildings have almost no protection whatsoever.

2. The buildings are not in danger of falling down on their own... so they could be saved... but we have to accept that a restoration is simply not in that cards... not with the current owner.

3. The interiors are apparently a disaster of maze-like mismatched floors.

4. The proposed addition is an ugly and uninspired design from a by-gone architectural era. Bauhaus / International Style stopped being "modern" over half a century ago. I agree with the principles of early modernism of course, but can we do something a little more interesting please? This design is a dud.

Overall... I think that developing the buildings into modern office space may be the lesser of two evils. And unlike the old warehouses across the street which were successfully converted to office space without a radical gutting of the interior... here were have a mishmash of non-contiguous internal spaces that just won't work as offices. So maybe we have to accept that any plan with the current owner will involve gutting these buildings... but I would really like to see the designers burn their plans and go back to the "drawing board".

here here. I feel bad for the heritage trust. They expended so much political capital fighting lesser proposals and that they have a real case they have a harder time getting taken seriously. It's a shame and the city is poorer for it. I actually felt that Pacey came off pretty well this evening. Passionate and articulate of their case (which they have this time). At the same time, after this evening, I'm pretty much ready to dismiss Fusion as the flip side of the coin. We challenge the Heritage Trust to find a development downtown that they actually support, but I also will be interested to see how long we go before Fusion actually finds something they don't like! This polarized debate is unfortunate.

I'm still mulling this one, but in general I don't like it. If we're not going to protect heritage here, really we're not going to protect it anywhere. This city doesn't have many blocks that have survived to today and this is one of them which to me requires special consideration. I don't think it's impossible to build on top of these buildings, but the design that has been proposed stinks. One thing that I have been wondering is whether their whole approach is well wrong. Instead of trying to jam office space here, maybe the answer is to go condos. The mismatched and difficult shapes, if done right, could actually appeal to condo buyers. As office it's a liability, but as condos it could be an asset. I don't know, just a thought. This one isn't a simple case.

At the end of the day, with International Place getting ready to go and NSP preparing to move to Electropolis, I don't think we need to approve this one just because we haven't had any office development downtown in recent years.

hfx_chris Sep 10, 2008 11:39 AM

How late did it go until? I couldn't watch, so I had my PVR set to record until 10:30. I hope it didn't go longer...

Jonovision Sep 10, 2008 5:12 PM

I second your points Takeo and Spaustin. I was really confused when a member of fusion got up and said they unanimously supported the development. I'm a member of that team, and I don't recall debating it. We did get a tour from the developer, but we never discussed it.

It ran until 11 last night, but I left myself at 10:30.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 5:33 PM

The heritage property act does not cover the interiors of the buildings, only the exteriors

THat being said the interiors are not original, they have been gutted long ago.

The international place development is not grounds to throw this proposal away. International place is a long shot, and even if it began construction tomorrow it would be almost 3 years till finished.

The vacancy rate downtown for A class buildings is well below 3%, with that 3% being small bits of area. If something doesn;t get built soon many of these companies will have no option but to expand into the sub's.

hfx_chris Sep 10, 2008 6:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision (Post 3791014)
I second your points Takeo and Spaustin. I was really confused when a member of fusion got up and said they unanimously supported the development. I'm a member of that team, and I don't recall debating it. We did get a tour from the developer, but we never discussed it.

It ran until 11 last night, but I left myself at 10:30.

From the moment the first stories about them hit, I never liked them. Do they truly represent your views? It seems to me Fusion is the polar opposite of the Heritage Trust, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3790328)
2. The buildings are not in danger of falling down on their own... so they could be saved... but we have to accept that a restoration is simply not in that cards... not with the current owner.

".

Well listening last night i was left believing one could.

I doubt anyone who might purchase these buildings from the current owner would restore them either.

Jonovision Sep 10, 2008 7:11 PM

hfx chris, I do like Fusion. And they represent an opening of dialogue between different groups. Especially that of the younger generation which doesn't seem to have much of a voice at city hall. My understanding of the urban design task force that I am part of, its aim is to get to know developers and get to a point where we have open discussion with them at the very beginning of the process. Before any designs are drawn and long before there is nothing that can be done. I am however a bit confused by last night. The task force never discussed this proposal and I am looking into what was said.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 8:16 PM

[QUOTE=Jonovision;3791267] My understanding of the urban design task force that I am part of, its aim is to get to know developers and get to a point where we have open discussion with them at the very beginning of the process. Before any designs are drawn and long before there is nothing that can be done. QUOTE]

So the task force is going tell developers how to design and build buildings? Sort of confused here.....

hfx_chris Sep 10, 2008 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3791386)
So the task force is going tell developers how to design and build buildings? Sort of confused here.....

All while not even discussing it with their own members first :)

Jonovision Sep 10, 2008 11:17 PM

lol, no. The aim is to work with developers to attain the best building in the end. Looking at different options and designs. We're hoping that developers will come to us as sort of consultants I think. It's just a good way to open up dialogue about what gets built in this city. It will no longer be the hard black and white, or yes or no. There will be a say in the actual design of the building.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfx_chris (Post 3791639)
All while not even discussing it with their own members first :)

Well i am member of the fusion group, not the task force mind you, but if their role is to steer developers on how design a building etc i think they will have a major battle ahead for them.

My understanding of the task force was to gain insight on proposed developments and learn the details etc, not influence the design.

Empire Sep 10, 2008 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3791386)
So the task force is going tell developers how to design and build buildings? Sort of confused here.....

I think one of the recommendations of HRM by design is for a design review committee. For the most part it is needed because most new developments in downtown are garbage. Purdy's Wharf was the last quality development.

Waterside is a bad development. The building is boring, it destroys an entire block of heritage buildings, it destroys what could be a very unique district. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of that underground parking right in front of Historic Properties and no doubt all of the buildings will be demolished because you can't excavate 35 down and not knock out the five feet of building that will be left behind. Ben McRea should withdraw the application and put the building up for auction.

sdm Sep 10, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3791839)
I think one of the recommendations of HRM by design is for a design review committee. For the most part it is needed because most new developments in downtown are garbage. Purdy's Wharf was the last quality development.

Waterside is a bad development. The building is boring, it destroys an entire block of heritage buildings, it destroys what could be a very unique district. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of that underground parking right in front of Historic Properties and no doubt all of the buildings will be demolished because you can't excavate 35 down and not knock out the five feet of building that will be left behind. Ben McRea should withdraw the application and put the building up for auction.

Well considering there is only 16 stalls underground i doubt that will be a large nightmare.

No one will buy these buildings...

Empire Sep 11, 2008 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3791890)

No one will buy these buildings...

Well, since the developer says they are worthless, someone will get a good deal.

sdm Sep 11, 2008 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3792925)
Well, since the developer says they are worthless, someone will get a good deal.

I learnt one thing very early in life, there is never a good deal....
Anyhow, will just have to see won't we.

someone123 Sep 12, 2008 1:50 AM

They are not worthless, but it is unlikely that somebody would be willing to pay more than the huge costs of relocation and renovation that are required. Something else to keep in mind is that the developers still have to pay to demolish and dispose of these houses if they are not claimed by somebody.

As for whether or not it's somehow "cost effective" to re-use these homes, well, it is not if all you care about is square footage, but the character of these buildings holds huge value to some people and reproducing them as they are would be prohibitively expensive. Halifax has a limited number of houses like this and they are worth preserving. If I had money I would invest in maintaining the city because it is unique and beautiful. Not everything in life has to be utilitarian.

Dmajackson Sep 12, 2008 3:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3794455)
They are not worthless, but it is unlikely that somebody would be willing to pay more than the huge costs of relocation and renovation that are required. Something else to keep in mind is that the developers still have to pay to demolish and dispose of these houses if they are not claimed by somebody.

As for whether or not it's somehow "cost effective" to re-use these homes, well, it is not if all you care about is square footage, but the character of these buildings holds huge value to some people and reproducing them as they are would be prohibitively expensive. Halifax has a limited number of houses like this and they are worth preserving. If I had money I would invest in maintaining the city because it is unique and beautiful. Not everything in life has to be utilitarian.

Ummm....I think you're in the wrong thread. Assuming by you saying houses and relocation I think you are talking about the Trillium not the Waterside...

I do agree with everything you mentioned above, though.

someone123 Sep 12, 2008 4:12 AM

Hah, yes. Wrong thread. :)

Dmajackson Sep 14, 2008 12:29 AM

Phil Pacey had a nice little rant in the Herald today about the Waterside:

Quote:

Historic Properties project out of bounds

By PHIL PACEY
Sat. Sep 13 - 6:10 AM

On Sept. 9, HRM council began considering two matters of grave importance for the heritage of Nova Scotia.

First is an application, dated May 26, by Armour Group Limited to demolish the classical, brick Imperial Oil Building, a registered heritage property at the northwest corner of Duke and Upper Water streets. Earlier, Armour had applied to demolish the early wooden Peter Martin Building, two doors north at 1870 Upper Water Street, which housed the dining room of Sweet Basil Bistro until Aug. 31.

Second is an application by Armour Group for a development agreement to permit construction of a nine-storey glass and concrete office building on this block. It is clear, from an examination of the drawings attached to the draft development agreement, that the project would also require the demolition of almost all but the street facades of three other registered heritage buildings on this block.

These are the rare, pitched-roofed Fishwick Express Building at 1861 Hollis Street, the unique stone Harrington Warehouse, that runs through the block from Hollis to Upper Water, and the decorative, L-shaped, brick Shaw Building at the northeast corner of Hollis and Duke streets. The ground would be hollowed out, and a 16-car parkade would be installed underground, with an unsightly garage entrance off Upper Water Street.

This matter should be decided on the basis of the law. There are two central issues – the removal of most of the historic material of the buildings, and the construction of the nine-storey block. The demolition and substantial alteration of the exterior appearance of the heritage buildings should be decided on the basis of the official HRM Building Conservation Standards. The standards, however, are not mentioned in the staff report recommending approval of the applications.

There are several standards that would be contravened by the Armour proposal. For example, Standard 9 requires that, "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy materials that characterize the property." The Armour proposal would destroy roofs, chimneys, rear and sidewalls, all protected by the Heritage Property Act. The proposal clearly contravenes the standards. The demolition permit application should be rejected.

The second issue is the construction of the 114-foot high office block. The Land Use By-law says that no building exceeding 25 feet in height may be constructed on these lots unless the building is consistent with the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS).

The MPS contains Policy CH-1, which says that "any additions thereto shall respect and be subordinate to any municipally registered heritage property on the site…" A nine-storey office building covering most of the block would not be "subordinate" to the modest two- to four-storey heritage buildings.

Viewed from across the streets, the office block would overwhelm and dominate the heritage buildings. The proposal contravenes the mandatory Policy CH-1. The application for a development agreement should be rejected.

Forty years ago, these buildings were threatened with demolition for an expressway. In 1973, city council formally resolved that the three-block area north of Duke Street from Granville Street to the water should be "preserved in its entirety." The buildings were preserved with the co-operation of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, and Historic Properties Ltd. The restoration of the 28 heritage buildings in this group helped put Halifax on the map as a heritage destination. These buildings are major generators of tourist dollars for Nova Scotia.

These buildings are a source of pride for residents of HRM. In a poll a year ago, Historic Properties was voted one of the seven wonders of HRM. In petitioning on Natal Day weekend, members of the Heritage Trust learned again of the strong affection people have for these buildings. People want these buildings to remain intact.

A generation later, we need council to uphold this legacy and the law. The necessary first step is for council to reject the demolition and development agreement applications next Tuesday. Then the Heritage Trust is prepared to work with council, with the Armour Group, and with others, so that these buildings can continue to be a source of pride for Nova Scotians.

Phil Pacey is president of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia.

Takeo Sep 14, 2008 12:57 AM

I'm no fan of Pacey... but how can you possibly characterize that as a "rant"? It was extremely even and balanced and based pretty much purely on facts and the existing regulations. There was no emotion or hyperbole in the article at all. As I say... I'm not a fan of the HT... but the article is well written and makes a compelling argument. Pacey has a lot of valid points (gasp).

Dmajackson Sep 14, 2008 1:03 AM

I know that rant probably wasn't the best choice of words but i didn't know what else to call it. If anything I named it rant because of its length, not its content.

worldlyhaligonian Sep 14, 2008 5:09 PM

Can this thread be renamed Waterside Centre, I find it annoying trying to remember that 1860 Upper Water Street is this specific development.

sdm Sep 14, 2008 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3798223)
I'm no fan of Pacey... but how can you possibly characterize that as a "rant"? It was extremely even and balanced and based pretty much purely on facts and the existing regulations. There was no emotion or hyperbole in the article at all. As I say... I'm not a fan of the HT... but the article is well written and makes a compelling argument. Pacey has a lot of valid points (gasp).

his points unfortunatley are not vaild

1870 upper water has nothing to do with this as its not a heritage property.

the demo agreement is precautionary for the imperial oil building if the foundation is found to be a safety issue. The developer has taken it out (within the context of the development agreement) so in order to meet the legal requirements under the act. It would be unreasonable to be in mid project and have to wait a year. Besides, they feel they won;t have to or if they do they will build it back to the ORIGINAL appearance.

I would hate to see growth in this city be stalled by a chimney....

The side walls and rear walls? The buildings run from hollis to upper water, so where are the rear walls? The side walls, there is one, which if i can remember the developer is keeping within the development.

Height, 25 feet. Guess we will never develop downtown then..

CH-1 policy has words omitted. I suggest reading the policy.

The area is not a heritage district, and has never formally been one.

To me the heritage trust is just trying to stop another development downtown. They claim they want development on vacant lots, but they have opposed every development on a vacant lot.

sdm Sep 14, 2008 5:30 PM

Also found this on www.hpwatersidecentre.ca


Statement - A.M. (Ben) McCrea, P.Eng., Chairman The Armour Group Limited
It was the vision of the President and the Board of Directors of NSCAD University to preserve the Granville Streetscape that led to a 1972 agreement with Historic Properties to create a new downtown campus within the historic buildings. NSCAD was almost singularly responsible for saving Granville Street from the wrecker's ball. The University's agreement with Historic Properties to enter into a 30 year Lease provided the fundamental economic base for Historic Properties to buy and renovate the buildings which provided NSCAD 120,000 square feet of space for their downtown campus.

The properties in the Hollis/Upper Water Street Block formed a very small portion of the space but the vacant land in that block was a key piece to allow for their kiln buildings and kiln operations.

NSCAD have used the 12,000 square feet of space in the upper floors of the four buildings currently part of Armour's Waterside Centre proposal for 35 years. NSCAD is well aware of the condition of these buildings and the need for an economically feasible re-development of the buildings ensures the preservation of the historical past.

They understand that compromise solutions are necessary to avoid losing these buildings and we are very gratified that NSCAD has come forward at the Public Hearing and provided unqualified support for our Waterside Centre project.

Empire Sep 15, 2008 12:00 AM

Waterside is a loser development. There are four registered heritage buildings that will be all but demolished in the heart of what should be historic properties period. These buildings are just as important as the buildings at historic properties. This block was a very bad investment for the Armour Group and they should get out while they have a chance.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:36 AM.

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