SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] The Doyle | ??m | 7 fl | U/C (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=221771)

kph06 Mar 26, 2016 2:09 PM

[Halifax] The Doyle | ??m | 7 fl | U/C
 
I'm surprised we don't have a thread for this yet, but here's a photo I got yesterday:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1706/...509370f8_c.jpg

portapetey Mar 28, 2016 5:59 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ifax-1.3509487

OldDartmouthMark Mar 28, 2016 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portapetey (Post 7386083)

Scary! I'm glad everybody was alright.

kph06 Mar 28, 2016 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portapetey (Post 7386083)

More equipment arrived onsite from the South/Hollis excavation about a half hour ago when I drove by. Looking at earlier photos it looks like it was a Deere 450 that went through the floor, that's roughly a 45 ton machine.

I think this is the same contractor that hit the gas line during the demolition of the Taj Mahal building at South and Hollis in the fall. If I remember correctly that was a case of not having proper locates.

kph06 Mar 28, 2016 8:06 PM

Today:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1659/...50bc1a5c_c.jpg

OldDartmouthMark Mar 28, 2016 9:02 PM

Wow... that's hard to look at. It's a shame that they decided not to incorporate those Victorians into the new structure. Next it will be what was probably one of the last examples of art deco built (1930s style built in the fifties) in Canada, a building with a unique character never to be seen in Halifax again.

Luckily, the new building will probably be junk in 40 or 50 years, unfortunately long after the developer has enjoyed the profits of his pillaging of Halifax's history, but hopefully the next one will be built in a time of better architecture. If I'm still around at that time, I will make it a point to watch it being torn down in person... :yes:

mleblanc Mar 28, 2016 10:00 PM

http://i.imgur.com/wYCtgxP.png
http://i.imgur.com/H3qqbRn.png
http://i.imgur.com/DpKy62G.jpg

Nice architectural addition to the area I think. If the right tenant signs on for that planned rooftop restaurant/patio you'll be looking at a pretty solid destination for SGR/area

Drybrain Mar 28, 2016 10:55 PM

The newest renderings look quite good I think, and that softens the blow a bit. Still not worth it though. You can't build more Victorians or Art Deco, whereas this or something like it could have gone on any number of other locations.

teddifax Mar 29, 2016 1:03 AM

I like the cohesive look it will give the entire block. I would love to see an actual department store located on the ground-floor level, maybe even onto the second level.

someone123 Mar 29, 2016 2:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 7386463)
The newest renderings look quite good I think, and that softens the blow a bit. Still not worth it though. You can't build more Victorians or Art Deco, whereas this or something like it could have gone on any number of other locations.

I think this demonstrates just how awful the heritage preservation movement in Halifax has been. For years their mantra was that low height limits would prevent demolition, because the developers would have less to gain from tearing down and building up. Yet here is a site with a low height limit where heritage buildings are being demolished anyway.

The height limits arguably make this worse because they reduce the margins developers have to work with. Imagine if the developer had been allowed to built a 20 storey point tower in exchange for preserving the former Maritime Life building in place and preserving the building materials of the Victorian rowhouses for use elsewhere in the city. That would have been a win-win for everybody compared to the current scenario; even the views from the library and Citadel would have been better preserved.

Halifax needs much stronger heritage preservation rules, including discretionary rules that apply beyond officially registered buildings, and density bonuses for heritage preservation, so that developers actually have an incentive to work with the old buildings.

The city also needs to lose its obsession over building heights. The peninsula needs more density and sometimes slender tall buildings are the right answer. There are too many stubby, massive buildings encouraged by blanket anti-height rules.

Drybrain Mar 29, 2016 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teddifax (Post 7386582)
I like the cohesive look it will give the entire block. I would love to see an actual department store located on the ground-floor level, maybe even onto the second level.

The thing is, varied building frontages are generally preferred by planners over long, samey frontages. A mix of building types and styles creates a much more interesting environment, IMO.

counterfactual Mar 29, 2016 5:12 AM

The other thing, is that those old Victorians or Art Deco buildings were solidly built, to last a long, long, time.

I hope the new building isn't made with crap materials and starts falling down in two decades.

OldDartmouthMark Mar 29, 2016 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 7386630)
I think this demonstrates just how awful the heritage preservation movement in Halifax has been. For years their mantra was that low height limits would prevent demolition, because the developers would have less to gain from tearing down and building up. Yet here is a site with a low height limit where heritage buildings are being demolished anyway.

The height limits arguably make this worse because they reduce the margins developers have to work with. Imagine if the developer had been allowed to built a 20 storey point tower in exchange for preserving the former Maritime Life building in place and preserving the building materials of the Victorian rowhouses for use elsewhere in the city. That would have been a win-win for everybody compared to the current scenario; even the views from the library and Citadel would have been better preserved.

Halifax needs much stronger heritage preservation rules, including discretionary rules that apply beyond officially registered buildings, and density bonuses for heritage preservation, so that developers actually have an incentive to work with the old buildings.

The city also needs to lose its obsession over building heights. The peninsula needs more density and sometimes slender tall buildings are the right answer. There are too many stubby, massive buildings encouraged by blanket anti-height rules.

Well said!

OldDartmouthMark Mar 29, 2016 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterfactual (Post 7386830)
The other thing, is that those old Victorians or Art Deco buildings were solidly built, to last a long, long, time.

I hope the new building isn't made with crap materials and starts falling down in two decades.

Yep, that's a great point. If the finishing materials are not of high quality, I shudder to think what it will look like in 20 years, smack dab in the middle of the Spring Garden area. I guess time will tell...

counterfactual Mar 29, 2016 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 7386630)
I think this demonstrates just how awful the heritage preservation movement in Halifax has been. For years their mantra was that low height limits would prevent demolition, because the developers would have less to gain from tearing down and building up. Yet here is a site with a low height limit where heritage buildings are being demolished anyway.

The height limits arguably make this worse because they reduce the margins developers have to work with. Imagine if the developer had been allowed to built a 20 storey point tower in exchange for preserving the former Maritime Life building in place and preserving the building materials of the Victorian rowhouses for use elsewhere in the city. That would have been a win-win for everybody compared to the current scenario; even the views from the library and Citadel would have been better preserved.

Halifax needs much stronger heritage preservation rules, including discretionary rules that apply beyond officially registered buildings, and density bonuses for heritage preservation, so that developers actually have an incentive to work with the old buildings.

The city also needs to lose its obsession over building heights. The peninsula needs more density and sometimes slender tall buildings are the right answer. There are too many stubby, massive buildings encouraged by blanket anti-height rules.

Couldn't agree more.

The Heritage Foundation has evolved, over time, into just a NIMBY organization, opposing even socially salutatory social housing (like the development in the north end). I see zero interest in their end on actual heritage preservation. Their only concern is opposing development and enforcing height limits, which, as you say, actually hurts heritage in cases like this.

Disband the Heritage Foundation. What an utter failure.

Ziobrop Mar 29, 2016 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterfactual (Post 7387320)
Couldn't agree more.

The Heritage Foundation has evolved, over time, into just a NIMBY organization, opposing even socially salutatory social housing (like the development in the north end). I see zero interest in their end on actual heritage preservation. Their only concern is opposing development and enforcing height limits, which, as you say, actually hurts heritage in cases like this.

Disband the Heritage Foundation. What an utter failure.

HTNS is not concerned with preserving built heritage.
they are concerned with saving OLD buildings.

RoshanMcG Mar 29, 2016 4:34 PM

I actually liked this proposal when I saw the first rendering, but these new renderings actually makes it look extremely bland and boring. Hopefully it'll look better once built?

JET Mar 29, 2016 5:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterfactual (Post 7387320)
Couldn't agree more.

The Heritage Foundation has evolved, over time, into just a NIMBY organization, opposing even socially salutatory social housing (like the development in the north end). I see zero interest in their end on actual heritage preservation. Their only concern is opposing development and enforcing height limits, which, as you say, actually hurts heritage in cases like this.

Disband the Heritage Foundation. What an utter failure.

The real issue is that we do not have municipal/provincial heritage laws that mandate the maintenance and preservation of our built heritage. Until that happens the buildings will continue to decline and disappear.

halifaxboyns Mar 29, 2016 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 7386630)
I think this demonstrates just how awful the heritage preservation movement in Halifax has been. For years their mantra was that low height limits would prevent demolition, because the developers would have less to gain from tearing down and building up. Yet here is a site with a low height limit where heritage buildings are being demolished anyway.

The height limits arguably make this worse because they reduce the margins developers have to work with. Imagine if the developer had been allowed to built a 20 storey point tower in exchange for preserving the former Maritime Life building in place and preserving the building materials of the Victorian rowhouses for use elsewhere in the city. That would have been a win-win for everybody compared to the current scenario; even the views from the library and Citadel would have been better preserved.

Halifax needs much stronger heritage preservation rules, including discretionary rules that apply beyond officially registered buildings, and density bonuses for heritage preservation, so that developers actually have an incentive to work with the old buildings.

The city also needs to lose its obsession over building heights. The peninsula needs more density and sometimes slender tall buildings are the right answer. There are too many stubby, massive buildings encouraged by blanket anti-height rules.

This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread about tearing down heritage buildings. HRM needs a broad toolkit, not just density transfers or a 'buildings we want designated' list but all sorts of things from tax credits/deferrals to powers to store and move buildings to other sites for repurposing. One of my really big pet peeves out here in Calgary is the lack of restoration of the old hotel next to the Bow - which was part of that project. The bricks and windows are stored in buildings all over the city and it was supposed to be rebuilt with those materials; still hasn't happened. With our economy - who knows when it will.

Does the new proposal ease the concerns of those who were worried about any view impacts from the library? Not that there is a preserved view plane here in any shape/form.

counterfactual Mar 30, 2016 3:09 AM

Will this place have parking? Would be great to have underground parking available for public use, across from the library...


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.