This will be a very heated hearing. And I don't think it will get through. I know that Ht is spreading misinformation, but this is just an ugly building. I will try to go to council to voice my opinion, but I've come to the conclusion that I cannot support such a boring, uninspired design.

I'm actually in Vancouver right now, staying in North Van to be more particular, and there are a couple of really nice heritage buildings downtown that have one or two storeys of glass added on top. I think that would be a much better idea then what they have proposed right now.

My thoughts exactly. It's not much of a building.

Edit:
The building is just a block dropped on top and a fairly ugly block at that. This really is an electic little mix of really neat buildings on this site and all they want to do is top them off with a solid blank block of glass. I would have liked to see a more varied appearence along the length of the proposed building to reflect the varied street below. Founder's Square certainly isn't one long uniform expanse

Another big challenge for this one is making the two old building's with pitched roofs work with a large project, but they could do a lot better than this http://www.halifax.ca/planning/image...gHollisSt3.jpg. For example, there could be an inset into the buidling there and a 4th floor deck. That would break up the structure and make for a nice transition. I'm just musing of course, but almost anything is better than what they're currently proposing.

I don't like the design either... but I don't know what the solution would be. It is a tricky design problem.

its a pretty narrow block, couple with the fact the developer is tryign to save the heritage buildings, which means those costs need to be spread out over more square footage or the building becomes unmarketable. I've been watchign this development closely as i am of the opinion its one of the only likely developments to happen in time to meet the major shortage of class "a" office space downtown.

I think this one will have no trouble at council, however it will most likely be appealled by members of HT.

One big problem with comparing Vancouver to Halifax is that prices are much, much higher in Vancouver, although there isn't a huge amount of demand for office space there. A lot of the developments are really high quality but contain tiny $1M condos or office space up for rent at rates that just wouldn't work in Halifax. As a result, they have a much larger design budget to work with.

Another big difference is that Vancouver doesn't have any really old buildings. "Heritage" there usually means something from the 1910s, 20s, 30s that was built with large floors, elevators, electricity and running water, maybe ventilation systems, etc. That is very different from an 1820s buildings with odd-sized spaces where everything has been shoehorned in already.

I don't believe that these factors imply that what is built in Halifax will always be worse, but importing designs from the West Coast probably won't work in general.

Yup. I've always said that same thing. It all comes down to money. I love visiting Boston and walking around Beacon Hill and the Back Bay. Those miles of unbroken brownstones are so amazing. It's so great that they saved all those buildings. And then I think of Halifax with all it's holes and demolitions and horrid imitations and conversions and I think... why can't we be more like Boston? But in Boston... those Brownstones are TINY and sell for $1M+. You can't renovate an old wooden Victorian house in Halifax and expect to get that kind of money out of it. I don't think the market it there. Or maybe developers here are just thoughtless and lazy? Or maybe a bit of both?

Well it definitely can't all be blamed on that because there are plenty of old wooden houses that have been beautifully restored by owners. The city needs some better design controls and owners need to take more pride in their buildings etc. I think a big part of the problem is simply that so much of the core is ignored by the municipality. I've been to towns in Mexico that managed to afford beautification programs. Lunenburg is in the same situation and has them. Halifax can afford them too.

Areas like Brunswick/Agricola would look incredible if they were all well-kept. Even wealthier streets like South Park and Inglis have a mix with some really ugly rental buildings that should just not be allowed to deteriorate in that way. Landlords can afford the maintenance and the relatively few homes under-maintained because they are lived in by old people on fixed incomes or whatever could be fixed up fairly cheaply by the city (through cost sharing).

New construction is improving a lot on its own, although I'd be happier with it if a couple of the really nice new proposals were actually under construction.

Notice in the paper this morning for public hearing to be held on Sept 9th.

jono you beat me to it :)

I am sure Pacey and clan are going to be there in masses for this one.

As they should be. For once maybe they will actually follow their mandate of protecting our heritage against ugly redevelopments.

I can't argee with you there, i actually don't mind it; there is certainly worse out there. Then again this is not about architecture its about making the economics work. It's quite clear there is a signifcant issues with a couple of the buildings and no one in there right mind would spend the money to fix them to lose money in a market that is finally making money.

It's about speculation and this block is a bad bad block to speculate on. This block should be part of Historic Properties and form a dedicated heritage district from the waterfront to the Delta. These buildings are in better condition than the buildings were at Historic Properties before they were renovated. This is not about taking these buildings and putting them into a workable business model and creating class 'A" office space on that postage stamp lot. There is no current plan to build an ugly box on top of historic properties and this block is no different. Any developer assembling buildings on that block for a small office building that involves demolishing two buildings (rebuilding one but stripped of character) clearly knows the risk and had better have a plan 'B".

I've flip flopped on this one but as time goes on I'm less and less impressed by it. There are so many empty or characterless blocks downtown and the block that will be tampered with for this project is one of the nicer ones. Meanwhile, a couple blocks away there's a much more solid and appropriate office proposal.

My only concern is that none of the major proposals have actually materialized downtown yet.

I mentioned Boston before. All I know is, this would never ever happen to an historic Brownstone in the Back Bay. Not in a million years. And it shouldn't happen here either. These building (the two stone ones especially) are very high quality unique heritage buildings and they should be preserved. This proposal does the opposite of that. It's about speculation and making piles of money. Saving the empty shell of the buildings is just a side-effect. For once (the only time I can think of), I'm actually on the side of the HT.

found this over the weekend

www.hpwatersidecentre.ca

Interesting stuff....

I haven't been able to make up my mind on this proposal, but you make a point. However, I believe in this case that with a new tower or without, the rennovations required forpreserving the outside of the building will require complete overhall inside. Thus, one thing is certain, only the shell of this building will be left to our visualization of it unless it is completely demoed due to its foundation problems. And who is going to restore it? Only private sector money will help this current situation.

If the buildings were left exactly as they are they would probably last another one hundred years. The foundation issue is only an issue if you excavate beside the building or in this case into the building. Otherwise, what you see is what you get. The buildings haven't moved in the last one hundred years.

Can;t wait to watch this one tuesday,

(Chronicle Herald)
METRO IN BRIEF


Sat. Sep 6 - 4:46 AM
Commission supports downtown complex


The Downtown Halifax Business Commission is supporting a major development proposed for the corner of Duke and Hollis streets.

In a news release Friday, the commission said the Armour Group’s proposed Waterside Centre complex should get the go-ahead. The project, the latest from award-winning developer Ben McCrea, would unify six buildings into one.

"Ben McCrea approached DHBC and made a presentation to the board, addressing all of our questions and concerns," Paul MacKinnon, the commission’s executive director, said in the release.

"This particular development will generate lots of conversation, but we, as an association that represents 1,800 businesses, believe it will contribute greatly to downtown Halifax. Our board unanimously endorses it."

Waterside Centre would be the first commercial office development in the downtown in 20 years, the commission said. There would still be retail space on the ground floor of the nine-storey complex, and most of the historical character of the existing buildings would be preserved.

The building would create only minimal new shadows and wind patterns, the commission said

I guess City Hall has learnt from the Alexander and have made as much time available as possible tomorrow night for Waterside;

Nice title, battle lines have been drawn on project..Should be used for every development in downtown.

Positive comments so far, although i am sure the naysayers will chime in soon.